United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER (ECF NOS. 237, 265, 271)
HOFFMAN, JR. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
the court is defendant Bruno Correia's Motion for Bill of
Particulars under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f), (ECF No. 237), filed
January 3, 2018, his amended Motion for a Bill of
Particulars, (ECF No. 265), filed April 24, 2018, the
government's response (ECF No. 307), filed May 29, 2018,
and Correia's reply (ECF No. 321), filed June 4, 2018.
Co-defendant Andre Araujo Rodrigues moved for joinder to the
motion (ECF No. 271), on April 25, 2018.
government states that this case arises out of a conspiracy
among numerous Brazilian nationals to commit credit card
fraud throughout the United States. On January 3, 2017, a
grand jury returned an indictment charging defendant Bruno
Macedo Correia (Correia) with the following crimes: Count 1 -
Conspiracy to Commit Fraud and Related Activity in Connection
with Access Devices (18 U.S.C. § 1029(b)(2)); and Count
29 - Conspiracy to Commit Money Laundering (18 U.S.C. §
original motion for bill of particulars moved for a broad
variety of information, but his amended bill of particulars
is more narrow, and is based upon discovery he has received.
The court will only address the amended motion and will deny
the original motion as moot.
moves for a bill of particulars asking, in eight separate
requests, for specific transactions and details supporting
the allegations against him, names of person with whom he
allegedly solicited cooperation, the exact role he played in
the commission of the overt acts charged, the statements the
government will rely upon to establish when the conspiracy
was joined, exact statements and events upon which the
prosecution intends to rely to prove the conspiracy and his
role, the locations where the acts occurred, and acts which
reflect a nexus to the state of Nevada. The government
responds that defendant's request is the equivalent of
civil discovery interrogatories, which are not available in
criminal prosecutions, and that it has provided extensive
discovery to explain the allegations.
7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure states:
The court may direct the government to file a bill of
particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars
before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time
if the court permits. The government may amend a bill of
particulars subject to such conditions as justice requires.
bill of particulars has three functions: ‘ to inform
the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with
sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, 
to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of
trial, and  to enable him to plead his acquittal or
conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense
when the indictment is itself too vague, and indefinite for
such purposes.'” United States v. Giese,
597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1980) cert. denied 444
U.S. 979 (1979) (quotation omitted); see also United
States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1483 (9th Cir. 1991)
(identifying the threefold purpose of a bill of particulars).
“A defendant seeking particularization ‘has the
burden of showing by brief, affidavit, or otherwise that
nondisclosure would lead to prejudicial surprise or the
obviation of opportunities for meaningful defense
preparation.” United States v. Jones,
2:12-cr-00400-APG-GWF, 2013 WL 5954489, at *4 (D. Nev. Nov.
Giese, the Ninth Circuit noted that the indictment
apprised the defendant of the federal conspiracy offense with
which he was charged and of the overt acts which allegedly
contributed to his participation in the conspiracy.
Giese, 597 F.2d at 1180. It was specifically noted
that requests for the “when, where, and how of every
act in furtherance of [a] conspiracy” are improper
discovery requests and beyond the purpose of a bill of
particulars. Id. at 1181; see also United States
v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 135 (9th Cir. 1981) (stating
that “[t]he defendant's constitutional right is to
know the offense with which he is charged, not the details of
how it will be proved.”).
the indictment describes in extensive detail each
defendant's conduct in the alleged conspiracy such that
the defendant and his counsel may understand the nature of
the charges against him and are able to prepare for trial and
avoid or minimize the danger of surprise. The objects,
manner, and means of this conspiracy are described in great
detail in the indictment. (See Indictment (ECF No. 1
at 3:10-13:6)). The government indicates that it has provided
extensive discovery including documents, videos, and audio
recordings, and provides extensive discussion and numerous
exhibits in its opposition which illuminates the role that
Correia played in the conspiracy. Correia does not argue an
inability to understand the nature of the charges against
him. The law is clear that a bill of particulars is not a
discovery device. It appears that defendants seek pretrial
disclosure of the precise evidence the government intends to
introduce at trial. As stated in Giese, “[a]
defendant is not entitled to know all the [e]vidence the
government intends to produce, but only the [t]heory of the
government's case.” 597 F.2d at 1181 (quotation
omitted). It is further noted that the government is under no
obligation to identify every overt act committed in
furtherance of a conspiracy. Id. Correia does not
dispute that the government has made a significant disclosure
of information regarding the transactions charged in the
a bill of particulars is not intended to be used for
discovery purposes. United States v. Chan, 2008 WL
5233585 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 12, 2008) (citing United States
v. Shepard, 462 F.3d 847, 860 (8th Cir. 2006)). Based on
the record, the undersigned concludes that a bill of
particulars is not necessary to allow the defense to
adequately prepare its case or to avoid prejudicial surprise.
on the foregoing and good cause appearing therefore, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Rodrigues's Motion to
(ECF No. 271) is GRANTED.
FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Bruno Macedo Correia's
Amended Motion for Bill of ...