As we’ve done more stories (see here and here) about the legal filings in the Don Blankenship criminal case — unsealed thanks for a coalition of media organizations and our lawyers — I’ve tried to post and include links to many of those filings. But for those who want to dig in a little more, here are links to what are — at least for now — the most important filings, the various pre-trial motions filed by Blankenship’s legal team and the responses from U.S. Attorney Booth Goodwin’s office.
First, here are the original indictment and the superseding indictment. And for those who want to follow along, Blankenship’s legal team filed a helpful “Memorandum to the Court” that listed and numbered their pre-trial motions. I’ve actually posted the legal briefs in support of each motion, rather than the motions themselves, because the briefs are actually much more informative. I haven’t yet posted the defense replies to the government responses, but I hope to add those and other documents to this post as time permits. As you can see, several documents remain under seal, despite the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals order in our favor.
— Motion No. 1 — Motion to Disqualify This Court and All the Judges of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia. Response from the government.
— Motion No. 2 — Motion to Revoke Order of Reference to Magistrate. Response from the government.
— Motion No. 3 — Motion to Transfer to Another District for Trial (STILL UNDER SEAL). Response from the government.
— Motion No. 4 — Motion to Dismiss for Vindictive and Selective Prosecution of Donald L. Blankenship for Exercising His First Amendment Rights. Response by the government.
— Motion No. 5 — Motion to Dismiss for Improper and Misleading Conduct before the Grand Jury (This document, number 84 on the court docket, was initially unsealed after the 4th Circuit ruling, but is no longer available on the court’s PACER system). Response by the government (STILL UNDER SEAL).
— Motion No. 5 — Motion to Dismiss Count One for Failure to State an Offense. Response by the government. Response by the government to defense MOTIONS 6-15.
United States District Attorney R. Booth Goodwin II and Assistant U.S. Attorney Steve Ruby (AP Photo/The Charleston Gazette, Chris Dorst)
— Motion No. 7 — Motion to Dismiss Count One for Failure to Charge Cognizable Conspiratorial Objects
— Motion No. 8 — Motion to Dismiss Count One for Lack of Specificity
— Motion No. 9 — Motion to Dismiss Count One as Duplicitous or To Require Election Between Counts One and Two
— Motion No. 10 — Motion to Dismiss Count Two for Failure to State a Conspiracy to Defraud
— Motion No. 11 — Motion to Dismiss Count Two for Improper Use of “Defraud” Clause of Section 371
— Motion No. 12 — Motion to Dismiss Count Two for Charging Conspiracy to Defraud the United States of Intangible Rights
— Motion No. 13 — Motion to Dismiss Count Three for Failure to State an Offense
— Motion No. 14 — Motion to Dismiss Count Four Due to Its Failure to Allege Materially False, Misleading or Fraudulent Statement of Fact
— Motion No. 15 — Motion to Dismiss Count Four for Failure to Allege Facts Establishing That Mr. Blankenship Made or Willingly Caused To Be Made Materially False or Misleading Statements
— Motion No. 16 — Motion for Bill of Particulars. Response by the government.
— Motion No. 17 — Motion to Strike Surplusage from the Indictment. Response by the government.
— Motion No. 18 — Motion for Access to Government’s Grand Jury Instructions Response by the government.
— Motion No. 19 — Motion to Enforce the Government’s Brady Obligations. Response by the government.
— Motion No. 20 — Motion for Extension of Time to File Motions In Limine. Response by the government.
Also of interest right now is this brief filed by the government yesterday, which explains in part their new, superseding indictment. And, pending before the court is a motion by Blankenship to again postpone the trial, currently scheduled for April 20, and the government’s response to that motion.
Blankenship is scheduled to be arraigned on the superseding indictment at 10:30 a.m. on March 24 before U.S. Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort in Beckley.