Indictments are lists of charges; expecting them to be informative for questions other than “what is the defendant being charged with” is irrational. (And “what is the evidence supporting the charges” is a separate question.)
> All the other overt acts listed appear to have been carried out by his unnamed alleged co-conspirator alone.
A conspiracy charge only requires any of the conspirators to have taken an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
I'm assuming at some point there will be a superseding indictment that goes into more detail.
The indictment seems to essentially recite the statutes named, even to the point of preserving the original text in the face of grammatical error.
I am particularly curious about instances where it is clear that the statute was violated by one set, in particular, of several alternate conditions.
Is it the role of the indictment to convey the nature of the alleged acts which broke the law, or to convey the nature of the laws that were broken, irrespective of the details of the acts?
The assertion by a grand jury that a person did one thing OR some other thing, especially, comes across as a little peculiar to a naive reader.