Opinion
Case No. CR01-197-C-EJL
May 17, 2002
ORDER
Pending before the Court in the above-entitled matter is Defendant William David Gladhart's motion for a bill of particulars. (Docket No. 24). The motion requests an order directing the government to file a Bill of Particulars as to precisely what information the government alleges Mr. Gladhart. and his co-defendant "failed to disclose" as raised in the indictment, The motion states that a bill of particulars is necessary in order to "avoid surprise and to allow preparation of a defense" in light of the voluminous.s discovery provided by the Government. The Government has filed a response. (Docket No. 25).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 governs the use, procedure, and contents of an indictment and/or information. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7. An indictment must be "a plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged" and include the citation to the satute, rule, regulation or other provision of law which the defendant is alleged to have violated. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1). Rule 7(t) provides that "[t]he court may direct the filing of a hill of particulars . . . as the court may permit."
A Bill of Particulars should enable a defendant to prepare an adequate defense and to protect against a second prosecution for the same offense. United States v. Inryco, Inc., 642 F.2d 290, 295 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Cook v. United States, 354 F.2d 529, 521 (9th Cir. 1965)). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to protect a defendant against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense and enable him to prepare an adequate defense. Duncan v. United States, 392 F.2d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 1968) (citing Remmer v. United States, 205 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1953)). It is designed to appraise the defendant of the specific charges being presented to minimize danger of surprise at trial, to aid in preparation and to protect against double jeopardy. United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983) (citations omitted). In determining if a bill of particulars should be ordered in a specific case, a court should consider whether the defendant has been advised adequately of the charges through the indictment and all other disclosures made by the Government. Id. at 1054 (9th Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979)). Full discovery will obviate the need for a bill of particulars. Id. (citing United States v. Clay, 476 F.2d 1211, 1215 (9th Cir. 1973)).
Defendant alleges that "unless defendants know precisely what information the government alleges [the defendants] failed to disclose, adequate preparation for trial is impossible." (Docket No. 24, p. 2). The indictment in this case charges that the defendants knowingly made false statements to The Bank of Latah for the purpose of influencing The Bank of Latah to renew a loan by failing to disclose the true nature of the personal and corporate financial situations. (Docket No. 1). The indictment includes the specific loan transaction involved and the citation to the relevant statute. The Government's response further includes a description of the allegedly false statements made by the defendants to the Bank of Latah. (Docket No. 25). Further, a review of the record in this ease reveals that full discovery has been provided by the Government. (Docket Nos, 24 and 25).
Based on the foregoing and being filly advised in the premises, the Court finds that the indictment is sufficiently particular to allow Defendant to prepare an adequate defense and, therefore, Defendant's motion for a bill of particulars (Docket No. 24) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.