Opinion
No. S1 04 Cr. 1131 (JFK).
January 24, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER
Defendant has moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(3)(c) to suppress statements and physical evidence. The Court has ordered an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of such evidence and the totality of the circumstances. Further, defendant has moved for an order to direct the Government to disclose any Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 404(b) material so that he can move to preclude its introduction at trial. The Court directs that any FRE 404(b) evidence be disclosed to defendant at least two calendar weeks before the trial of this case begins. Defendant also seeks a bill of particulars under FRCP 7(f) requiring four sets of particulars. This part of defendant's application is denied. Here, the complaint, indictment and discovery already produced provides defendant with adequate information. As I wrote in United States v. Persico, 621 F. Supp. 842, 868 (S.D.N.Y. 1985):
[The defendants] are not entitled to know . . . the means by which it is claimed they performed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy nor the evidence which the government intends to adduce to prove their criminal acts[, beyond what is charged in the indictment]. Details as to how and when the conspiracy was formed, or when each participant entered it, need not be revealed before trial.
Defendant also asks that the indictment be dismissed based on Blakely v. Washington, 124 S.Ct 2531 (2004). Nothing in Blakely or United States v. Booker, U.S. 2005 decided last week, requires dismissal of the indictment.
Further, he seeks statements of witnesses pretrial, as well as Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), material at this time. The Government correctly points-out thatUnited States v. Coppa (In re United States), 267 F.3d 132, 146, does not require any such disclosures at this time and that it will make disclosures, at the appropriate time, under Brady, Giglio and 18 U.S.C. 3500.
Should additional motions by this defendant be appropriate in the view of defense counsel, he is directed to bring such to the attention of the Court before making or filing such motion.
SO ORDERED.