United States District Court, S.D. West Virginia, Huntington Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
C. CHAMBERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
pending before the Court is Defendant's Motion for Bill
of Particulars. For reasons specified herein, Defendant's
motion is DENIED.
February 5, 2018, Defendant filed the present Motion for Bill
of Particulars. ECF No. 149. In his motion, Defendant seeks
six particulars in reference to the indictment filed in the
present case. Id. The Government responded to
Defendant's motion on February 20, 2018. ECF No. 172. In
its response, the Government asserted that Defendant's
requests 4, 5, and 6 should be denied as moot and that
Defendant's requests 1, 2, and 3 should be denied.
to Rule 7(f), a criminal defendant may move for a bill of
particulars “to gain information on the nature of the
charge[s] against him so as to enable him to prepare for
trial, avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at time of
trial and enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in
bar of another prosecution for the same offense . . .”
United States v. Dulin, 410 F.2d 363, 364 (4th Cir.
1969). This right, however, is in no way unconditional.
bill of particulars is appropriate when an indictment fails
to provide adequate information to allow a defendant to
understand the charges and to avoid unfair surprise.”
United States v. Gibson, 327 Fed.Appx. 391,
at *1 (4th Cir. May 14, 2009) (unpublished opinion). An
indictment will be considered insufficient where it fails to
“give[ ] defense counsel adequate notice of the charges
. . .” United States v. Am. Waste Fibers Co.,
Inc., 809 F.2d 1044, 1046 (4th Cir. 1987).
Requests 4, 5, and 6
Defendant's requests 4 and 6, the Court accepts as true
the Government's assertions that the evidence Defendant
seeks does not exist. Accordingly, as to requests 4 and 6,
the Court DENIES Defendant's motion as
Defendant's request 5, the Court accepts the
Government's assertion that it will furnish to Defendant
exact timestamps of particular surveillance footage as
Defendant requested. Accordingly, as to request 5, the Court
DENIES Defendant's motion as moot. This
leaves Defendant's requests 1, 2, and 3 ripe for the
Requests 1 and 2
request 1, Defendant asks the Court to direct the Government
to provide him with the “earliest statement and/or
event upon which the prosecution will rely to prove that the
conspiracy existed.” ECF No. 149. The Government
responds that it “is not required to allege
particularity with regard to the precise beginning or end of
a defendant's involvement in [a] conspiracy.” ECF
No. 172, at 4.
request 2, Defendant asks the Court to direct the Government
to provide him with “the nature of any and all
statements and/or events, other than those already contained
in the indictment, upon which the prosecution intends to rely
to prove that the conspiracy existed.” ECF No. 149. In
response, the Government asserts that it is not required to
prove a specific agreement among co- conspirators nor is ...