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. Vallodolid

United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division

October 27, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
DARRICK VALLODOLID, Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          Andrew P. Rodovich United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the court on the Motion for Bill of Particulars [DE 390] filed by the defendant, Darrick Vallodolid, on August 24, 2016. For the reasons set forth below, the motion is DENIED.

         Background

         On July 21, 2016, the grand jury returned the Second Superseding Indictment against the defendant and sixteen other individuals. The defendant, Darrick Vallodolid, currently is charged with conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine and marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. A conviction under each charge carries a maximum penalty of life imprisonment.

         The indictment indicated that the defendants were members of the “Almighty Latin Kings Nation”, hereinafter “Latin Kings”, and that they conspired and participated both directly and indirectly in the acts of murder, robbery, intimidation, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, and narcotics trafficking. The indictment set forth forty-nine overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Vallodolid was arraigned on August 6, 2016 and pleaded not guilty.

         The pending motion seeks information concerning the names of all unindicted co-conspirators; the date, time, place, and manner in which the defendant is alleged to have become a member of the conspiracies alleged in Counts I and II; and the date, time, and location of specific acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy alleged in Count II, along with the name of the individual alleged to have performed those acts. The Government filed a response to Vallodolid's motion on September 6, 2016 [DE 404]. Vallodolid did not file a reply.

         Discussion

         Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) provides:

The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 10 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.

         In determining whether to grant the bill of particulars, “[t]he standard is whether the government's indictment sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charges to enable him to prepare for trial.” United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928, 949 (7th Cir.1991). See also United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918, 927 (7th Cir. 2013); United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440, 446 (7th Cir. 2003); United States v. Glecier, 923 F.2d 496, 501 (7th Cir. 1991); United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825, 843 (7th Cir. 1985).

         A defendant is only entitled to know the offense with which he is charged, not all the evidence of how it will be proved. See United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 135 (7th Cir. 1981). The indictment is not required to “detail every factual nugget necessary for conviction”, nor is it required to “allege in detail the factual proof that will be relied on to support the charges.” United States v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300, 306 (7th Cir. 2000). Indeed, the Seventh Circuit has held that a bill of particulars is not necessary when an indictment lays out the elements of the charged offenses, gives sufficient notice of the charges to allow the defendant to prepare a defense, gives the time and place of the accused's allegedly criminal conduct, and cites the applicable statute or statutes. Vaughn, 722 F.3d at 927; See also United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964, 975 (7th Cir. 2003); Fassnacht, 332 F.3d at 446. The defendant's constitutional right is to know the offense with which he is charged, not to know the details of how it will be proved. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d at 466 (quoting United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 135 (7th Cir. 1981)). The key question is whether the defendant was sufficiently apprised of the charges against him in order to enable adequate trial preparation. Vaughn, 722 F.3d at 927 (quoting United States v. Blanchard, 542 F.3d 1133, 1140 (7th Cir. 2008)).

         In making this determination, the court is not required to consider only the indictment. The information may be provided to the defendant through “some other satisfactory form.” Canino, 949 F.2d at 949 (the government had maintained an “open-file” policy); Fassnacht, 332 F.3d at 447 n. 2 (“the government in this case provided the defendants with extensive pretrial discovery, giving them full access to all documentary evidence in the government's possession, thus further obviating the need for a bill of particulars”); Glecier, 923 F.2d at 501-02 (a “volume of documents and records” had been provided by the government during discovery). Adequate discovery can “satisfy the need for a bill of particulars.” Vaughn, 722 F.3d at 928.

         For a RICO conspiracy, the Government, “need only charge -- after identifying a proper enterprise and the defendant's association with that enterprise -- that the defendant knowingly joined a conspiracy the objective of which was to operate that enterprise through an identified pattern of racketeering activity.” Glecier, 923 F.2d at 500.

         Vallodolid has indicated that the sole allegation contained in Count I of the indictment is that on May 20, 2008 he possessed a firearm. Count II alleged that he conspired to possess with intent to distribute five kilograms or more of marijuana, and five kilograms or more of cocaine. Therefore, he has argued that to prepare and investigate the case properly he needs the names of all unindicted alleged co-conspirators; the date, time, place, and manner in which the defendant is alleged to have become a member of the conspiracies alleged in Counts I and II; and the date, time, and ...


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.