![]() ![]() Here, the grand jury heard evidence that the Defendants extended its broader agreement affecting prices in East Texas to include Shreveport. Such an amendment is prohibited in order to prevent a conviction based on a charge or facts not presented to the grand jury. Simply put, the market area described in the Bill includes Shreveport because the Defendants' price fixing activities affected the prices charged in that area.Ī constructive amendment occurs only when a jury is permitted to convict the defendant upon a factual basis that effectively modifies an essential element of the offense charged. On the contrary, East Texas as described in the Bill is the government's best attempt to define the otherwise imprecise and fluid distribution area affected by the price fixing conspiracy charged in Count 1. First, the Defendants' argument assumes that "East Texas" has a static and standard definition. The Defendants argue that the description of East Texas provided in the Bill has either constructively amended the Indictment or created a potentially fatal variance between the allegations in the Indictment and the proof that will be adduced at trial. This area can generally be described as running from the eastern edge of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex eastward to and including Shreveport, Louisiana, and from the Red River in the north to Crockett in the south." Bill, ¶ 5. ![]() Baird's Dallas bakery and the Flowers' Tyler bakery distributed bread and bread products. The government voluntarily provided the Defendants with a Bill of Particulars ("Bill") which further defined East Texas as "that area east of the Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex where both the Mrs. The allegation is unfounded.Ĭount 1 of the Indictment charges that the Defendants violated § 1 of the Sherman Act by engaging in an unlawful conspiracy to suppress and restrain competition in the sale of bread and bread products in East Texas. They claim that, by including Shreveport, Louisiana in the definition of East Texas, the government has improperly expanded the scope of the Indictment. The government responds to each numbered request in order.ĭefendants' request that the government be prohibited from presenting evidence of the Defendants' sales activities or pricing activities in any markets outside of the state of Texas, and specifically Shreveport, Louisiana and the surrounding vicinity. Defendants have asked this Court to restrict the government's proof in nine separate areas. The government hereby responds to Defendants' Joint Motion in Limine and Brief in Support. GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS' JOINT MOTION IN LIMINE AND BRIEF IN SUPPORT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. ![]() This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |