USA v. Yuan et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-25-402-D-1
)
KE YUAN, a/k/a Jessica, 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
ORDER
Before the Court is Defendant Ke Yuan’s Motion to Strike Prejudicial Surplusage
[Doc. No. 77], requesting that the Court strike certain portions of the Superseding
Indictment, pursuant to F ED. R. CRIM . P. 7(d). The government has filed a response [Doc.
No. 81]. The matter is fully briefed and at issue.
Defendant was charged in a five-count Superseding Indictment [Doc. No. 52], along
with five co-defendants. Defendant was charged with drug conspiracy, two counts of
maintaining a drug-involved premises, and money laundering conspiracy. Id. In an
introductory paragraph, the Superseding Indictment provides the following:
In the years following the passage of Oklahoma’s [medical
marijuana 	program], 	the 	[Oklahoma 	Medical 	Marijuana
Authority] granted more than 9,000 commercial grow licenses.
Many 	of 	these 	commercial 	grows 	were 	established
fraudulently, with their owners making false representations on
applications for OMMA licenses and [Oklahoma State Bureau
of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs Control] registrations.
Sometimes the true owners falsely stated that they were
Oklahoma residents. Other times, the true owners did not list
themselves on these applications, instead listing third parties
who had no relationship to or controlling interest in the grow
operation. 	This 	‘ghost-ownership 	scheme’ 	resulted 	in
Case 5:25-cr-00402-D Document 84 Filed 04/22/26 Page 1 of 3

2
numerous individuals, including illegal aliens and foreign
nationals, 	as 	well 	as 	U.S. 	citizens 	of 	states 	other 	than
Oklahoma, illegally receiving OMMA licenses and OBN
registrations and operating marijuana grows. In addition to
being established fraudulently, many of these illegal marijuana
grows supplied the black market, sending marijuana both out
of state and out of the country. Oftentimes, these ‘ghost
owners’ did not act alone in establishing these black-market
grows, instead relying on real estate or legal professionals to
help them evade Oklahoma’s MMP requirements.
Id. at 3.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(d) provides that “[u]pon the defendant’s
motion, the Court may strike surplusage from the indictment or information.” FED. R.
C RIM . P. 7(d). “Acting in its discretion, a district court may strike as surplusage allegations
not relevant to the charge at issue and inflammatory and prejudicial to the defendant.”
United States v. Collins, 920 F.2d 619, 631 (10th Cir. 1990) (citations omitted).
Defendant asks that the Court strike the above-referenced introductory paragraph
(Paragraph 7) from the Superseding Indictment [Doc. No. 52]. Defendant asserts that
Paragraph 7 contains allegations independent of and unnecessary to the offenses charged,
and the allegations are inflammatory and prejudicial “as they suggest that the jury should
render a verdict based on conduct unconnected to the defendants in this matter and based
on statewide historical problems resulting from the kind of conduct the defendants are
alleged to have committed.” [Doc. No. 77, at 4-5].
In response, the government contends that the background provided in Paragraph 7
is 	highly 	relevant 	to 	the 	conspiracy 	charged 	in 	the 	Superseding 	Indictment. 	The
government asserts that it is not asking the jury to convict Defendant based on statewide
Case 5:25-cr-00402-D Document 84 Filed 04/22/26 Page 2 of 3

3
trends, but is providing context for Defendant’s alleged conduct, which closely follows the
background information contained in the Superseding Indictment.
Upon consideration, the Court agrees with the government that Paragraph 7 is
relevant to the crimes charged, and the context provided is not inflammatory or prejudicial
to Defendant. As the government notes, the Superseding Indictment alleges that Defendant
“establish[ed] marijuana grows outside of Oklahoma law and regulation,” “set up grows in
the names of ‘straw owners’,” and “oversaw the operation of those illegally established
grows and then proceeded to operate them in violation of Oklahoma (and federal) law.”
[Doc. No. 81, at 3]. Thus, the background information related to “ghost-ownership
schemes” is relevant to Defendant’s conduct charged in this case. Further, the Court’s jury
instructions will make clear that the jury is not to base its verdict(s) on the conduct of
others, but only on the defendants’ conduct as alleged in the Superseding Indictment.
For these reasons, Defendant Ke Yuan’s Motion to Strike Prejudicial Surplusage
[Doc. No. 77] is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 22 nd day of April, 2026.
Case 5:25-cr-00402-D Document 84 Filed 04/22/26 Page 3 of 3