Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Galloway

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

June 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CORNELIUS GALLOWAY, et al., Defendants.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

         THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon Defendant Cornelius Galloway's Motion for Bill of Particulars filed on April 20, 2018 (Doc. 212). Defendant Danielle Galloway joins in the motion. Doc. 213. Defendants in this case are charged with crimes related to alleged involvement in a commercial sex trafficking ring referred to by the Government as the “Galloway Organization.” Having reviewed the parties' briefs and applicable law, the Court finds that Defendant's motion is not well-taken and, therefore, is denied.

         BACKGROUND

         In this motion, Defendant moves the Court to order the Government to file a bill of particulars that sets forth in detail what evidence it relies on concerning “overt acts” (c), (d) and (f) of Count 1 of the Second Superseding Indictment (Doc. 103, “Indictment”), which charges Defendant with one count of conspiracy to commit human trafficking.

         DISCUSSION

         The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense. U.S. v. Ivy, 83 F.3d 1266, 1281 (10th Cir. 1996); U.S. v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir.1990). Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f) describes an indictment as “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. . . .” A bill of particulars is not necessary if the indictment “sets forth the elements of the offense charged and sufficiently apprised the defendant of the charges to enable him to prepare for trial.” Ivy, 83 F.3d at 1281. Significantly, a defendant “is not entitled to notice of all of the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the government's case, ” id. (internal quotation marks omitted), for a bill of particulars “is not a discovery device.” U.S. v. Dunn, 841 F.2d 1026, 1029 (10th Cir.1988) (emphasis in original). U.S. v. Tyler, 42 Fed.Appx. 186, 190 (10th Cir. 2002); U.S. v. Anderson, 799 F.2d 1438, 1441-42 (11th Cir. 1986) (a bill of particulars may not be used merely as a discovery device).

         Courts have “always had very broad discretion” in whether to grant requests for such bills. Will v. U.S., 389 U.S. 90, 100-102 (1967). However, a defendant “possesses no right to a bill of particulars and the decision on the motion lies within the discretion of the [trial] court.” Id. at 100-102.

         It has been noted that few concrete standards have been developed in making a Rule 7(f) determination. See U.S. v. Rogers, 617 F.Supp. 1024, 1026-27 (D.Colo. 1985). However, the Court finds some guidance in using the following factors used by some courts, such as: (1) he clarity of the indictment, (2) the degree of discovery available to the defendant, and (3) the complexity of the charges. Id.

         Defendant requests a bill of particulars solely as to the overt acts (c), (d) and (f) which are alleged in Count 1 of the Indictment:

c. On or about January 15, 2017, ADRIAN BROWN murdered D.Y. during a botched robbery planned by CORNELIUS GALLOWAY; D.Y.'s activities ran contrary to the objectives of the Galloway Organization and of the conspiracy; d. On or about January 15, 2017, ADRIAN BROWN murdered T.S. at the direction of CORNELIUS GALLOWAY because T.S. had become a liability to Galloway Organization and to the conspiracy;
f. On or about April 26 and 27, 2017, MATTHEW WOODS, attempted to force A.R. into prostitution through violence and threats of violence.

         Defendant claims that the indictment does not inform him “with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare a defense” or “to minimize surprise at trial.”

         I. Clarity of Indictment

         A. Overt Act (c)

         For overt act (c), Defendant contends that it is unclear whether the Government is alleging that D.Y. was murdered due to his contrarian activities or due to the botched robbery. Defendant argues that if the Government's entire basis for alleging overt act (c) is that D.Y. was murdered because he was a black male attempting to steal the prostitutes who worked for Mr. Galloway, then no bill of particulars is necessary. However, Defendant claims he would unfairly surprised at trial if the Government's theory is that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.