Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:02-CR-243-G
November 4, 2002
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Defendant Bryan Ashlock ("Ashlock") has moved under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) for a bill of particulars. For the reasons stated below, the motion is denied.
The Fifth Circuit has explained that the purpose of a bill of particulars is "to inform an accused of the charge with sufficient precision to reduce surprise at trial, to enable adequate defense preparation, and critically, by fleshing out the charges to illuminate the dimensions of jeopardy." United States v. Davis, 582 F.2d 947, 951 (5th Cir. 1978), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 962 (1979) (citing United States v. Mackey, 551 F.2d 967, 970 (5th Cir. 1977)); United States v. Cantu, 557 F.2d 1173, 1178 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1063 (1978). A motion for a bill of particulars is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is subject to review for a clear abuse of that discretion. United States v. Vasquez, 867 F.2d 872, 874 (5th Cir. 1989); Davis, 582 F.2d at 951. In deciding a motion for a bill of particulars, the court "must balance the needs of the defendant against the government's right not to disclose its witnesses, evidence or legal theories." United States v. Miller, 210 F. Supp. 716, 717 (S.D. Tex. 1962).
The law is well settled that a motion for a bill of particulars does not permit generalized discovery. Davis, 582 F.2d at 951; United States v. Pena, 542 F.2d 292, 294 (5th Cir. 1976). Nor does a motion for a bill of particulars require the government to provide a "detailed exposition of its evidence or explain the legal theories upon which it tends to rely at trial." United States v. Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352, 1359 (5th Cir. 1980), cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1015 (1980); see, e.g., Dillen v. Wainwright, 449 F.2d 331, 332 (5th Cir. 1971) ("[T]he bill of particulars does not have the function of providing detailed disclosure of the government's evidence in advance of trial.").
In this case, the superseding indictment sets forth with sufficient detail the nature of the charges brought against Ashlock. In Count One of the superseding indictment, the grand jury charges that Ashlock conspired to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute over "five hundred (500) grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine, a Schedule II controlled substance, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(A)." Superseding Indictment at 1. Count Two charges Ashlock with possessing "pseudoephedrine, a list I chemical, with the intent to manufacture a substance or mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine." Id. at 2. Count Three charges Ashlock with unlawfully possessing "an Ithaca 12 gauge shotgun, serial number 920508, and a 22 caliber pistol, Jennings Firearms Brand, serial number 629424, which had been shipped and transported in interstate commerce. Id. at 3. Finally, Counts Four and Five charge that Ashlock, on two separate dates, "knowingly and intentionally possessed with the intent to distribute in excess of fifty (50) grams of a substance or mixture containing a detectable amount of methamphetamine." Id. at 4-5. This five count indictment, coupled with the pretrial discovery Ashlock has received under the rules of criminal procedure, permits Ashlock to appreciate the nature and scope of the charges against him and to prepare a defense thereto. See Vasquez, 867 F.2d at 874 ("[I]f the government has provided the information called for in some other satisfactory form, then no bill of particulars is required."); Burgin, 621 F.2d 1352 ("The function of a bill of particulars is to enable the defendant to prepare for trial and avoid prejudicial surprise as well as providing protection against a subsequent prosecution for the same offense."). Therefore, Ashlock's motion for a bill of particulars, pursuant to F.R. CLUM. P. 7(f), is DENIED.