Nor should a bill of particulars “be used to compel the government to provide the essential facts regarding the existence and formation of a conspiracy.” United States v. Moreover, a defendant cannot successfully move for a bill of particulars in order to “force the government into divulging its prosecution strategy.” United States v. 30, 2019).ĭefendants may not use a bill of particulars to obtain information that they already have through the indictment and discovery. 1985) (citations omitted).Ī defendant bears the burden of proving that the information requested in his motion for a bill of particulars is necessary and that he will be prejudiced without its production. The Eleventh Circuit has noted that a bill of particulars serves three purposes: “to inform the defendant of the charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense, to minimize surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the event of a later prosecution for the same offense.” United States v. 7(f).Ī district court is vested with broad discretion in deciding whether a bill of particulars should be granted. Where an indictment does not conform to this standard, a defendant may “move for a bill of particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits.” FED. Motions for a Bill of Particularsįederal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) requires that an indictment provide “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged” and a citation to the statute that the defendant is alleged to have violated. He alleges that the law cited in the indictment is too uncertain and vague to support criminal prosecution. On August 1, Fisher moved to dismiss the superseding indictment. On April 8, 2022, Fisher and Sinnott filed motions for a bill of particulars, seeking additional information that they allege should have been included in the superseding indictment. 3 Now before this Court are several motions relating to the indictment. On February 24, 2022, a grand jury returned a 135-count first superseding indictment against seven Defendants for fraudulently inflating the valuation of syndicated conservation easements as a tax shelter tactic. Defendants allegedly created illegal tax shelters whereby high-income taxpayers claimed unwarranted and inflated charitable-contribution tax deductions in connection with the donation of conservation easements. Backgroundĭefendants face various tax-related charges in the Northern District of Georgia. Defendants Sinnott, Herbert Lewis, Victor Smith and Walker Douglas Roberts, II adopted Fisher's motion. This case comes before the Court on the motions of Defendants Jack Fisher and James Sinnott for a bill of particulars.Īlso before the Court is Fisher's motion to dismiss the indictment for uncertain law and unconstitutional vagueness. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION JACK FISHER HERBERT LEWIS YEKATERINA LOPUHINA WALTER DOUGLAS ROBERTS, II JAMES SINNOTT VICTOR SMITH and CLAY MICHAEL WEIBEL, Defendants.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |