United States District Court, D. New Mexico
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
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.
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
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).
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.
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.
requests a bill of particulars solely as to the overt acts
(c), (d) and (f) which are alleged in Count 1 of the
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.
claims that the indictment does not inform him “with
sufficient precision to allow him to prepare a defense”
or “to minimize surprise at trial.”
Clarity of Indictment
Overt Act (c)
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 ...