01/30/2010 79 MOTION for Bill of Particulars by Benjamin Stanley. (King Grant, Ethenia) (Entered: 01/30/2010)
Doc 79 PDF file
viewer.zoho.com
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Defendant, Benjamin Stanley, through undersigned counsel, and moves this Court for a bill of particulars and respectfully request that this Court require the Government to provide a bill of particulars as to the allegations in the indictment against this Defendant. As grounds for this Motion, Defendant shows as follows:
2.
Trial courts have very broad discretion in ruling upon requests for a bill of particulars. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 99 (1967). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charges against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense and to minimize surprise at trial, and to enable [him] to plead [his]acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes. United States v. Colson, 662 F.2d 1389 (11th Cir. 1981); United States v. Francisco, 575 F.2d 815, 818 (10th Cir. 1978). See also United States v. Roberts, 174 Fed. Appx. 475, *1-2 (11th Cir.2006). Failure to grant a motion for bill of particulars may constitute reversible error. United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006).
3.
To adequately prepare for his defense and pretrial motions, Defendant needs some additional information about the evidence in this case and Defendant’s alleged role in the conspiracy. Specifically Defendant requests the following:
As to count One Defendant needs the Government to clarify:
(1) who the others not named but known are. Including alleged co-conspirators and aiders and abettors.
(2) How Mr. Stanley assisted in the creation of the 10-k.
(3) What “other information” as stated in paragraph (G) refers to.
(4) What false information was provided to an accountant who prepared financial statements in connection with the 10-k as stated in paragraph (G).
(5) Who is the accountant referenced in paragraph (G).
4.
This Motion is not at this time an attack upon the sufficiency of the indictment. The fact that the indictment is valid, assuming it is, is not a defense to a motion for a bill of particulars, United States v. Faulkner, 53 F.R.D. 299, 310 (D. Wis. 1971),inasmuch as the underlying purpose of Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure is not to cure defects in the Government's pleadings. In fact, a bill of particulars cannot save an invalid indictment. United States v. Farinas, 299 F. Supp. 852(S.D.N.Y. 1969).
5.
The requested information is already known to the Government, so a bill of particulars would not be burdensome. A bill of particulars would substantially assist defense counsel in evaluating this case, advising Defendant and preparing for trial. The Government may modify the bill of particulars as it acquires additional information.
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully requested that this Court exercise its sound discretion and order the United States to provide the particulars requested herein so as to assure that the Defendant may adequately prepare for trial and avoid prejudicial surprise.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of January, 2010.
/s/ Ethenia F. King Grant
Attorney for Benjamin Stanley
GA Bar No. 420252
KING GRANT & ASSOCIATES, LLC
149 S. McDonough St. ? Suite 160
Jonesboro, Georgia 30236
Tel: 770.210.4886
Fax: 770.477.1869
ekinggrant@kinggrantlaw.com Conversion Solutions Holdings (fka CSHD) () Stock Trading Info: |
