United States District Court, D. Idaho
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. Nye Chief U.S. District Court Judge.
before the Court is Defendant Jacob Smith's Motion for a
Bill of Particulars, (Dkt. 18) and numerous pro se motions
filed by Smith (Dkts 27-31, 35-42). Smith seeks an order
directing the Government to provide additional documents and
specific identifications in regard to the indictment filed in
this case. Upon review, and for the reasons set forth below,
the Court finds good cause to DENY Smith's Motion for a
Bill of Particulars.
September 24, 2019, the Government filed an indictment
charging Smith with one count of conspiracy to distribute
methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§
841(a)(1), (b)(1)(B) and 846; and one count of possession of
a firearm by a prohibited person, in violation of 18 U.S.C.
§§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2). Dkt. 1. On October 30,
2019, Smith filed the pending Motion for a Bill of
Particulars. The Government filed its Response on November
14, 2019. Dkt. 24.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) reads, in full:
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.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f).
of particulars should enable a defendant to prepare an
adequate defense and to protect against a second prosecution
for the same offense. United States v. Inryco, Inc.,
642 F.2d 290, 295 (9th Cir. 1981) (citing Cook v. United
States, 354 F.2d 529, 521 (9th Cir. 1965)). It is
designed to appraise the defendant of the specific charges
being presented, to minimize danger of surprise at trial, to
aid in preparation, and to protect against double jeopardy.
United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir.
1983) (citations omitted). In determining if a bill of
particulars should be ordered in a specific case, a court
should consider whether the defendant has been adequately
advised of the charges through the indictment and all other
disclosures made by the Government. Id. (citing
United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th
Cir. 1979)). “Full discovery...obviates the need for a
bill of particulars.” Giese, 597 F.2d at 1180
(citing United States v. Clay, 476 F.2d 1211, 1215
(9th Cir. 1973)). “A defendant is not entitled to know
all the evidence the government intends to produce but only
the theory of the government's case.” United
States v. Ryland, 806 F.2d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 1986)
(citing Giese, 597 F.2d at 1181). “In the
Ninth Circuit the use of a ‘bare bones'
information-that is one employing the statutory language
alone-is quite common and entirely permissible so long as the
statute sets forth fully, directly and clearly all essential
elements of the crime to be punished.” United
States v. Woodruff, 50 F.3d 673, 676 (9th Cir. 1995),
(internal quotation marks and citation omitted), as amended
(Apr. 19, 1995). The scope and specificity of a bill of
particulars rest within the sound discretion of the trial
court. See Long, 706 F.2d 1044.
motion seeks an order directing the Government to provide
specific documents, identifications, and other information
relating to the allegations in the indictment. The Government
responded to the motion, noting that it has provided Smith
and his counsel with police reports, audio/video recordings,
the transcript of the testimony before the grand jury, and
other discovery that describes the facts and circumstances
surrounding the charges in the indictment in great detail.
reviewed the parties briefing, the superseding indictment,
and the record herein, the Court finds the indictment is
sufficiently particular to allow Smith to prepare an adequate
defense. The indictment cites to the specific statutes that
fully, directly, and clearly state all essential elements of
the crimes with which Smith is charged. Additionally, the
indictment includes the relevant dates and the facts
supporting the charges. Moreover, the Government represents,
with no dispute from Smith, that it has provided Smith with
substantial discovery. The Court finds that the information
contained in the indictment and the discovery in this case
satisfy Rule 7.
addition to his Motion for a Bill of Particulars, Smith has
filed several motions without the assistance of his
attorney. It is not appropriate for a prisoner to
file motions pro se when he is represented by counsel. US
v. Olano,62 F.3d 1180, 1193 (9th Cir. 1995); and
Byerly v. Idaho Board of Corrections, 2019 WL
3848783 (D. Id. 2019)(“An accused has the
right to represent himself or herself pro se or to be
represented by an attorney, but he does not have an absolute
right to elect to be represented by counsel and also to
represent himself or serve as his own co-counsel.”).
The Court therefore strikes all pro se ...