USA v. Celestine et al

Filing 135

Order on Motion for Bill of Particulars, Order on Motion for Joinder

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
NARON CELESTINE,
Defendant.

3:09-CR-065-HRH-JDR
ORDER
REGARDING
MOTION FOR
BILL OF PARTICULARS
(Docket No. 43, 52)

Defendant Naron Celestine seeks a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule
7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Docket 43. The motion is joined by
co-defendant Steven Lamont Riley. Docket 52. The government submitted an
opposition at Docket 67. Upon due consideration of the motion and record herein
the motion for a bill of particulars is granted in part and denied in part as set forth
below. Generally an indictment that sets forth the offense in the language of the
statute is sufficient. United States v. Ely, 142 F.3d 1112, 1120 (9th Cir. 1997). An
indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the charged crimes and
adequate detail to inform the defendant of the charges and to enable him to plead

double jeopardy. Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974). The purpose of a
bill of particulars is to provide a defendant with sufficient information about the
charges to fairly apprise him of the nature of the charge(s) so that he may prepare
his defense and avoid prejudicial surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead his
conviction or acquittal as a bar to a second prosecution for the same offense. United
States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468 (9th Cir. 1991).
In Count 1 of the Indictment the defendants were charged with
conspiring to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute 500 grams or more
of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 846 and 841(b)(1)(B). Count 2 of the
indictment charges Celestine and another co-defendant, Tillman Bradley III, with
aiding and abetting one another to knowingly and intentionally distribute 500 grams
or more of cocaine on October 29, 2005, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § § 841(a)(1)and
(b)(1)(B). A review of the indictment indicates that both counts sufficiently track the
language of the particular statutes involved. The indictment sets forth the dates and
the location as Anchorage, Alaska for the events alleged in the two counts.
Request 1, of the motion for bill of particulars seeks the names and
addresses of other principles to the offenses. The defendants are not entitled to a
witness list in this non-capital case. United States v. Steel, 759 F.2d 706, 709 (9th
Cir. 1985). A defendant may not use a motion for a bill of particulars to inquire into
the means or manner by which the government intends to prove the particular crime.

09-cr-065-JWS-JDR CELESTINE Order @43 Re Motion for Bill of Particulars_mtd.wpd

2

Ellis v. United States, 321 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 1963); United States v. Gray, 464
F.2d 632, 635 (8th Cir. 1972). The government need not disclose by a bill of
particulars the identity of any unindicted co-conspirators. United States v. Dicesare,
765 F.2d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir. 1985). Request 1 is denied.
Request 2 requests the government to describe the specific conduct
and acts done by the defendant to violate each of the two counts. Request 3 seeks
to learn whether the government contends that there were telephone calls, meetings
or conferences or other means of communication between the co-principles to the
alleged conspiracy. Request 4 seeks a description of the circumstances, time and
location for which the defendant acted in violation of the drug laws as charged. To
the extent that the government knows of a particular location at which any drugs
were distributed or possessed with intent to distribute they should disclose that
information to the defendant(s). The government need not provide the time and
circumstances under which it contends the defendant(s) violated the drug laws
charged. Requests 2, 3 and 4 are otherwise denied.
Requests 5 seeks exact language used by the defendant to indicate that
he acted to aid, counsel, command, induce or procure or commit the offenses
alleged in the indictment.

This request is denied except to the extent the

government has any relevant recorded statement by the defendant which is within
the government's possession, custody or control and the prosecutor knows or

09-cr-065-JWS-JDR CELESTINE Order @43 Re Motion for Bill of Particulars_mtd.wpd

3

through due diligence could learn that the statement exists. The government should
also produce any portion of a written record containing the substance of any relevant
oral statement made by the defendant in response to interrogation by a person then
known to the defendant to be a government agent. In all other respects defendant(s)
request 5 is denied.
Request 8 seeks a detailed description of all devices allegedly used in
furtherance of the alleged violations. The request for a description of such devices
is denied. To the extent that the government has in its possession, custody or
control a tangible object that is material to the preparation of the defense and the
government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial or such item was
obtained from or belongs to the defendant then the defendant is entitled to discovery
and inspection of that items pursuant to Federal Criminal Rule 16(a)(1)(E).
Request 9 seeking the criminal record of the defendant(s) is granted.
See Rule 16(a)(1)(D) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Request 6 seeks the identity of any co-principles to the alleged offenses
who have not been named in the indictment. Request 7 asks the government to
disclose whether it contends that Celestine actually committed any overt act in
furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. Request 10 seeks a listing of all overt acts
committed by the defendant to engage in the alleged illegal narcotic trafficking.
Request 11 seeks disclosure of any additional overt acts which could have been but

09-cr-065-JWS-JDR CELESTINE Order @43 Re Motion for Bill of Particulars_mtd.wpd

4

were not included under Count 1 of the indictment. Request 12 seeks disclosure of
any overt act the government contends was committed by the defendant affecting
commerce by extortion or payment of a drug debt in relation to the allegations of
drug distribution in Count 2. Request 13 seeks any additional overt acts which could
have been included under Count 2 in which the government intends to present
testimony about at trial.
An indictment need not allege the government’s theory of the case or
provide details as to the evidence the government intends to present at trial. United
States v. Mustachio, 968 F.2d 782, 787 (9th Cir. 1991); United States v. Cochrane,
985 F.2d 1027, 1031 (9th Cir. 1993). A motion for bill of particulars is not intended
to allow defendant to inquire into the means or manner by which he allegedly
committed a specific criminal act. United States v. Gray, 464 F.2d 632, 635 (8th Cir.
1972); Ellis v. United States, 321 F.2d 931, 932 (9th Cir. 1963). It is improper to use
a bill of particulars to seek disclosure of the identity of an unindicted co-conspirator.
United States v. Dicesare, 765 F.2d 890, 897-98 (9th Cir. 1985). Under 21 U.S.C.
§ 846 the government need not set forth alleged overt acts as part of the conspiracy.
Requests 6, 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are denied.
Request 14 seeks disclosure by the government as to whether it intends
to present evidence of wiretaps or electronic surveillance at trial. This request is

09-cr-065-JWS-JDR CELESTINE Order @43 Re Motion for Bill of Particulars_mtd.wpd

5

interpreted as seeking notice from the government of intent to use certain types of
evidence. The motion is granted accordingly.
Summary
Wherefore, the motion for bill of particulars is denied except as to
Requests 9 and 14, and as to requests 5 and 8 in part as noted in this order.

DATED this 2nd day of February, 2010, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

09-cr-065-JWS-JDR CELESTINE Order @43 Re Motion for Bill of Particulars_mtd.wpd

6