Multiplicity of Kobres Indictment

In the indictment, each count represents a different date on the calendar, not a separate and distinct offense, as required by law.

'"Count' and 'charge' when used relative to allegations in an indictment or information are synonymous".  State v. Puckett, 39N.M. 511, 50 P.2d 964, 965, Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Pg. 348.  With respect to a criminal law, "charge" means "...the specific crime the defendant is accused of committing.".  Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, Pg. 233.

Specifically, I have been charged with making radio transmissions using one transmitter, located in one physical position, on one frequency, without a license.  The additional counts were obtained by the government in order to raise the charge to felony level (malicious prosecution).

Multiplicity is the charging of a single offense in several counts of the indictment...  A multiplicitous indictment raises the spector of multiple punishment for a single offense, and can prejudice the jury by suggesting that more than one crime was committed.  United States v. Gullett, 713 F.2d 1203, 1211-12 (6th Cir. 1983);  United States v. Cauble,  706 F.2d 1322, 1334 (5th Cir. 1983); United States v. Stanfa, 685 F.2d 85, 86-87 (3rd Cir. 1982); and numerous others.

The extra counts were heaped on for several reasons.  They are used as a sensation factor by the television media, which prejudices the public against the targeted individual.  Without the extra 13 counts piled on top there would be even less justification to bring the case into an already overloaded court system.  They are also used as bargaining chips to induce the target to accept a plea bargain.  I was offered a deal wherein I could plead guilty to one count and not have a full jury trial.  But I had not violated any constitutional principle so I declined.

By pretending that I operated 14 broadcast stations without a license, it raised the possibility of being sentenced to 28 years in prison and/or a $2.8M fine.  The mindless media did its part, capitalizing on the sensation of the event while simultaneously prejudicing my case and with it, my future.

The multiplicitous indictment violated the spirit and intent of Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.  Attorney Becraft submitted a motion requesting indictment counts two through fourteen be dismissed due to multiplicity.  Judge Adams summarily denied the motion without explanation.