#Motion for bill of particulars sample pdf#
#Motion for bill of particulars sample trial#

Analysis of these cases shows that surprise and prejudice are determined by examining the indictment and the other facts known to the defendant, from whatever source. Rather, in this Circuit a bill of particulars is required only where the defendant would suffer 'actual surprise and substantial prejudice' at trial. Furthermore, ' is not meant as a tool for the defense to obtain detailed disclosure of all evidence held by the government before trial.' Id. A court does not abuse its discretion by denying a bill of particulars in light of a detailed indictment. Rather, the decision to order a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the court. A defendant also has 'no unconditional right to a bill. 1987) ('Clearly, a bill of particulars is not to be used as a general discovery device').

#Motion for bill of particulars sample trial#

A BILL OF PARTICULARS IS NOT NECESSARY ABSENT ACTUAL SURPRISE AND SUBSTANTIAL PREJUDICEĪ bill of particulars is designed: 1) to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him so that he can adequately prepare for trial 2) to avoid or minimize the danger of unfair surprise at trial and 3) to enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy if he is later charged with the same crime when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes. The information already provided to Defendants goes far beyond that required and renders a Bill unnecessary. In response, the United States sent counsel a letter, attached as Exhibit 2, providing further information, including a listing of the contracts that the United States considers as objects of the bid rigging conspiracy. Baker admitted the outline of the conspiracies and identified his co-conspirators.įinally, counsel requested, in a letter dated February 26, 2001, the same General Motors' contracts and co-conspirator names as he has requested in his Motion for a Bill of Particulars. Baker by an FBI agent and an IRS agent in 1996. (1) Also appended to the January 16 th letter was a copy of a report of interview with Mr. Appended to that letter was a group of approximately 330 Bates-stamped documents that the United States had pulled, copied, and sent to the Defendants with the notification that these were documents that the United States considered as central to its case. On January 16, 2001, a letter, attached as Exhibit 1, was sent to Defendants outlining the United States' Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 production. The United States has also provided Defendants with extraordinary discovery. § 371 conspiracy, the beginning and ending dates of the conspiracy, and includes a lengthy recitation of fifty-one overt acts committed by the conspirators. In Count II, the Indictment details the 18 U.S.C. §1, identifies co-conspirators, specifies the beginning and ending dates of the conspiracy, details the bid rigging process, and gives a lengthy description of the conspiracy. Count I then sets forth the elements of a violation of 15 U.S.C. The Indictment is nineteen pages in length, beginning with almost five pages of background information regarding the Defendants, their co-conspirators, and a description of the bidding process. § 371) with mail fraud and money laundering as the objects of the conspiracy.

In a two-count Indictment, Defendants were charged with violating the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C § 1) and conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. Accordingly, the United States requests that the Court deny the Motion. Moreover, because of the ample information already available to Defendants, ordering a Bill here is inappropriate because Defendants cannot make the requisite showing of 'actual surprise and substantial prejudice' required by Sixth Circuit precedent for a Bill of Particulars.

Baker's own admissions, and additional information recently provided to Defendants make a Bill unnecessary. The Indictment, the documentary discovery already provided, Mr. The United States opposes the Motion as unnecessary and inappropriate. RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARSĭefendants have filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars, requesting five categories of information. D-1 SAUGER INDUSTRIES, INC., and D-2 JOHN A. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

#Motion for bill of particulars sample pdf#

To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting).