United States v. Modi

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Magalnik

    160 F. Supp. 3d 909 (W.D. Va. 2015)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 was subject to ten-year statute of limitations

    The defendants argue that this enormous amount of discovery actually “impede[s] rather than assist [s] the defense in its understanding of the government's case.” United States v. Modi, 197 F.Supp.2d 525, 530 (W.D.Va.2002). They contend that “to be shown thousands of documents without any direction as to the significance of the various pieces of paper [does] not comport with fairness.”

  2. United States v. Perry

    30 F. Supp. 3d 514 (E.D. Va. 2014)   Cited 16 times
    Holding bill of particulars necessary where allegations of falsification/alteration in thousands of documents took "differing forms" and that even the Government's "witnesses will have difficulty identifying which [documents] were falsified"

    A defendant is not fairly apprised of the necessary information merely because the government provided “mountains of documents to defense counsel who were left unguided as to which documents would be proven falsified” at trial. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 575; see United States v. Modi, 197 F.Supp.2d 525, 530 (W.D.Va.2002) (recognizing, “as argued by the defendants, that the volume of discovery in a complex case may itself impede rather than assist the defense in its understanding of the government's case,” but nevertheless denying a motion for a bill of particulars in a criminal case involving a medical fraud conspiracy because the defendants conceded that the government provided “charts or summaries” identifying the “patients at issue, the dates of services, the suspect treatments, and the amounts paid for those allegedly improper services”). B. Analysis

  3. United States v. Coleman

    CASE NO. 3:17-CR-00008 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2018)

    The extensive discovery provided does not completely ameliorate these concerns; the quantum of information provided may actually make it more difficult for Defendant to understand which parts of the last eight years of his life are actually at issue here. See United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 575 (2d Cir. 1987) ("The Government did not fulfill its obligation merely by providing mountains of documents to defense counsel who were left unguided as to which documents would be proven falsified or which of some fifteen burglaries would be demonstrated to be staged."); United States v. Modi, 197 F. Supp. 2d 525, 530 (W.D. Va. 2002) ("I recognize, as argued by the defendants, that the volume of discovery in a complex case may itself impede rather than assist the defense in its understanding of the government's case."). Accordingly, the Court will direct the Government to file a bill of particulars summarizing the agreement or agreements constituting the conspiracy charge.

  4. U.S. v. Maloney

    5:07-CR-117-3-BR (E.D.N.C. Jan. 2, 2008)

    An indictment that tracks the language of a statute is generally sufficient. Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117; see United States v. Gordon, 780 F.2d 1165, 1171 (5th Cir. 1986) (indictment that tracts language of conspiracy and mail fraud statutes is sufficient); United States v. Modi, 197 F. Supp. 2d 525, 529 (W.D. Va. 2002) (same). The government is not required to plead detailed factual allegations in the indictment.