Opinion
No. MO-01-CR-36(13).
April 10, 2001.
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Before this Court is the Defendant's Motion for Bill of Particulars. After due consideration, the Court is of the opinion that Defendant's Motion should be DENIED.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
By superceding indictment filed on March 21, 2001, Defendant Catalina Gonzales Sanchez, along with some eighteen other defendants, is charged with several counts of violating federal narcotics laws in connection with an alleged large-scale marihuana distribution conspiracy running from about January 1998 and continuing until at least April 1999. Count One identifies several overt acts committed by several defendants to effect the objects and purposes of the conspiracy. Under Paragraph `18' Defendant is charged with contacting co-defendant Jeannie Llanez to drive a load of marihuana to Odessa, Texas. The marihuana load was allegedly received by co-defendant Jose "Josecin" Sanchez at the residence of Defendant Catalina Gonzalez Sanchez and her husband co-defendant Javier Sanchez. By Count One, Defendant, along with several other co-defendants, is charged conspiring with the other defendants to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Defendant is also charged with possession with intent to distribute more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). By Count Two, based on the overt acts identified in Count One, Defendant is further charged with unlawfully, knowingly and intentionally conspiring or otherwise agreeing together to import into the United States from the Republic of Mexico more than 1,000 kilograms of marihuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 952(a), 960(a)(1), and 963.
Count Seventeen of the Superceding Indictment further charges Defendant and several other co-defendants, aided and abetted by each other, with knowingly possessing with intent to distribute marihuana in an amount less than 50 kilograms on January 2, 1999, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Defendant is not named in any other count of the twenty-one count Superceding Indictment.
Defendant moves for a bill of particulars under FED. R. CRIM. P. 7. In particular, Defendant request any and all information that the Government may have concerning other named and unindicted defendants including any acts in furtherance of any alleged offense of any named defendants, particular acts performed by each defendant, indicted or unindicted, and the time, place, and names of persons from whom Defendant alleged received and/or procured the marijuana.
DISCUSSION
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. 1 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 129 (1982); United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1359 (5th Cir. 1980). A bill of particulars is not intended to allow generalized discovery. United States v. Davis, 582 F.2d 947, 951 (5th Cir. 1978). 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 1352. In this case, the indictment, particularly the Introduction and overt acts alleged in Count One, provides sufficient guidance as to the details of the offense for which the Defendant is charged. The final paragraph of the Introduction alleges that:
Defendants engaged in a large-scale marihuana distribution conspiracy (The Organization), and in doing so, joined in a conspiracy to violate federal drug laws. . . . Though not a legal or formal business entity, the Organization, under the guidance and supervision of Organization managers and leaders, was responsible for corruptly importing in the United States from Mexico and transporting to distribution locations inside the United States thousands of pounds of marihuana. The Organization represents a group of marihuana traffickers who joined together in a common effort and with a common goal to distribute marihuana.
The Court appreciates that in many cases where conspiracy is charged the factual makeup is complex. However, the conspiracy alleged in this case is relatively straightforward. In addition, the government has set forth its theories as to the nature of the conspiracy charge by way of the overt acts identified in Count One. Therefore, the Court finds that the Superceding Indictment coupled with the discovery practice in the Western District are sufficient to allow the Defendant to prepare her 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"); United States 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.").
CONCLUSION
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendant Catalina Gonzalez Sanchez's Motion for Bill of Particulars be DENIED.