Opinion
CRIMINAL Action No: SA-04-CR-055-XR
April 28, 2004
ORDER
On this date the Court considered Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars (docket no. 76). After a careful review of the motion, the Court DENIES the motion.
Facts and Procedural Background
Defendant is charged in an Indictment filed February 4, 2004. Count One alleges that beginning on or about January of 2003 and continuing until on or about July 31, 2003 he unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally conspired to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 846. Count Two alleges that on or about July 31, 2003, he unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted with others to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(C) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Count Three alleges that on or about July 31, 2003, he unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally aided and abetted with others to possess pseudoephedrine, with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(c)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2.
On March 30, 2004, Defendant filed various motions seeking discovery. On April 15, 2004, the Court signed an Order denying these motions without prejudice and informing defense counsel that if the Government was not complying with the Court's previous General Order regarding Discovery or if other discovery was required, Defendant could file a new motion seeking same. To date, no other motions for discovery have been filed, nor has there been any indication that the Government has failed to comply with the Court's General Order regarding Discovery.
Analysis
The function of a bill of particulars is to provide the defendant with the information about the pending charges that is necessary to the preparation of his defense and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial. U.S. v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1359 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980). A bill of particulars is not intended to allow generalized discovery. U.S. v. Davis, 582 F.2d 947, 951 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962 (1979). Similarly, it is not designed to compel the Government to give a "detailed exposition of its evidence or to explain the legal theories upon which it tends to rely at trial." Burgin, 621 F.2d 1359. In this case, the indictment, provides sufficient guidance as to the details of the offense for which the Defendant is charged. The Court finds that the Indictment coupled with the discovery practice in the Western District are sufficient to allow the Defendant to prepare his defense and to avoid any unfair surprise to the Defendant. See Davis, 582 F.2d at 951 (denying defendant's motion for bill of particulars where conspiracy charge was "simple and the charged heroin distribution pattern was wholly of a garden variety"); U.S. v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 872, 874 (5th Cir. 1989) ("It is well established that if the government has provided the information called for in some other satisfactory form then no bill of particulars is required.").