United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P. Rodovich, United States Magistrate Judge.
matter is before the court on the Second Motion for Bill of
Particulars [DE 909] filed by the defendant, Darrick
Vallodolid, on July 19, 2017. For the following reasons, the
motion is DENIED.
defendant, Darrick Vallodolid, has been charged in the Second
Superseding Indictment and the Third Superseding Indictment.
The Third Superseding Indictment was filed on January 19,
2017. He is currently 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.
of the Third Superseding Indictment has alleged that
Vallodolid along with twenty-five co-defendants were members
of the “Almighty Latin Kings Nation” and that
they conspired and participated both directly and indirectly
in the acts of murder, attempted murder, robbery,
intimidation, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, sex
trafficking, and narcotics distribution. The indictment set
forth fifty overt acts that were committed in furtherance of
13, 2017, the Government filed the Notice of Intent to
Introduce Enterprise Evidence [DE 824]. The Notice indicated
that the Government intends to introduce as evidence at trial
that on April 12, 2009, Vallodolid shot and killed Victor
Lusinski, who he believed was a rival gang member. Also, on
July 7, 2017, the Government filed a second Notice of Intent
to Introduce Enterprise Evidence [DE 875] and the
Supplemental Notice of Enhanced Sentencing [DE 876], which
included additional overt acts regarding Vallodolid.
pending motion has requested that the Government identify all
overt acts committed by Vallodolid that it intends to
introduce at trial. Also, the motion has requested that the
Government provide the particulars regarding each alleged
overt act, including but not limited to the act itself, the
location, time, and date that it occurred, and any
individuals other than Vallodolid who allegedly were involved
or witnessed the act. The Government filed a response in
opposition to Vallodolid's motion on July 25, 2017.
Vallodolid has not filed a reply and the time to do so has
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.
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 only is 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).
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)).
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 (“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.
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 ...