United States v. Ligambi, CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-01
| Decision Date | 21 June 2012 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-15,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-06,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-03,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-11,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-07,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-01,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-14,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-04,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-10,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-05,CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 09-00496-08 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOSEPH LIGAMBI, ANTHONY STAINO, JR., JOSEPH MASSIMINO, GEORGE BORGESI, MARTIN ANGELINA, GAETON LUCIBELLO, DAMION CANALICHIO, LOUIS BARRETTA, GARY BATTAGLINI, JOSEPH LICATA, and LOUIS FAZZINI, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Before the Court are Defendants Borgesi, Canalichio, Angelina, and Lucibello's Motions for Bills of Particulars. For the following reasons, the Court finds that bills of particulars are not warranted with respect to Defendants Borgesi, Canalichio, Angelina, and Lucibello because the indictment anddiscovery materials sufficiently enable Defendants to avoid surprise at, and prepare for, trial as well as to protect themselves against a second prosecution for the same conduct.
Defendants Borgesi, Canalichio, Angelina, and Lucibello are four of fourteen defendants charged in a fifty-two count second superseding indictment. The case emerged from a criminal investigation spanning ten years and has been twice designated a complex case due to the number of defendants and the nature and quantity of evidence, which includes over 14,000 intercepted wire and oral communications. See ECF Nos. 166, 520. Among other counts, Defendants are charged with conspiring to conduct and participate in the conduct of the affairs of the criminal enterprise of the Philadelphia La Cosa Nostra ("LCN") Family through a pattern of racketeering activity and through the collection of unlawful debts.
On March 7, 2012, Defendant Canalichio filed a motion for a bill of particulars and the Government responded on April 5, 2012. ECF Nos. 355, 377. On March 14, 2012, Defendant Lucibello filed a motion for a bill of particulars and the Government filed its response on April 5, 2012. ECF Nos. 358, 376. On April 9, 2012, Defendant Angelina filed a motion for abill of particulars to which the Government responded on May 16, 2012. ECF Nos. 384, 525. Lastly, on April 16, 2012, Defendant Borgesi filed a motion for a bill of particulars to which the Government responded on May 15, 2012. ECF Nos. 396, 510, 512. All of these motions are ripe for disposition and the Court will deal with each in turn following a discussion of the applicable legal principles.
The Court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars, or a defendant may move for a bill of particulars. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). Whether to grant a bill of particulars lies in the discretion of the trial court, and denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion. United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 49, 54 (3d Cir. 1975). "The purpose of the bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him to adequately prepare his defense, to avoid surprise during the trial and to protect him against a second prosecution for an inadequately described offense." United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 63-64 (3d Cir. 1971).
A bill of particulars is "more akin to the functions of an indictment than to discovery," United States v. Smith, 776F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985), in that its function is to supplement the pleading requirements applicable to the indictment, "when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes." Addonizio, 451 F.2d at 64; see also United States v. Moyer, 674 F.3d 192, 203 (3d Cir. 2012) ().
The 1966 amendment to Rule 7(f), eliminating the requirement that cause be shown before a bill of particulars may be ordered, was "designed to encourage a more liberal attitude by the courts towards bills of particulars without taking away the discretion which courts must have in dealing with such motions in individual cases." Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) advisory committee's note. Nonetheless, a bill of particulars is not a vehicle for the defendant to obtain wholesale discovery of the government's evidence or theories. See e.g., United States v. Eufrasio, 935 F.2d 553, 575 (3d Cir. 1991); Smith, 776 F.2d at 1111; Addonizio, 451 F.2d at 64. "Rather, it is intended to give the defendant only that minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation." Smith, 776 F.2d at 1111 (citing United States v. Manetti, 323 F. Supp. 683, 696 (D. Del. 1971)).
As with an indictment, a bill of particulars serves to set the parameters of the government's case, such that "there can be no variance between the notice given in a bill of particulars and the evidence at trial." Smith, 776 F.2d at 1111 (citing United States v. Neff, 212 F.2d 297, 309 (3d Cir. 1954)); United States v. Murray, 297 F.2d 812 (2d Cir. 1962)). Due to this consequence:
[T]rial judges must be allowed to exercise broad discretion in order to strike a prudent balance between the defendant's legitimate interest in securing information concerning the government's case and numerous countervailing considerations ranging from the personal security of witnesses to the unfairness that can result from forcing the government to commit itself to a specific version of the facts before it is in a position to do so.
United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063, 1066 (3d Cir. 1989).
An indictment is sufficient and obviates the need for a bill of particulars when "it substantially follows the language of the criminal statute, provided that its generality does not prejudice a defendant in preparing his defense nor endanger his constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy." Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at 575. By the same token, when the government supplements a detailed charging document with substantial discovery, defendant's claim for a bill of particulars is further weakened. United States v. Urban, 404 F.3d 754, 772 (3d Cir. 2005).
The Court turns now to apply these standards to Defendants Canalichio, Lucibello, Angelina, and Borgesi's motions for a bill of particulars.
Defendant Canalichio requests the Court direct the government to provide a bill of particulars that specifies the following information: (a) the names and identities of all co-conspirators, whether known or unknown; (b) the first and last events that the government will rely upon as proof of the beginning and end of the conspiracy; (c) the dates, times, and places, that establish when Defendant Canalichio became a member of the conspiracy and withdrew from the conspiracy; (d) all overt acts allegedly committed by Canalichio in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, which the government intends to prove at trial; (e) whether any defendant or co-conspirator, named or unnamed, was a government agent during the alleged conspiracy; and (f) the names of any co-conspirator and others who conversed with Canalichio about the charged crimes during the pendency of the alleged conspiracy. Def.'s Mot. 2-3, ECF No. 355. The Government responds that Defendant's motion should be denied because it only seeks evidentiary details of the racketeering conspiracy charged in Count One. Gov't's Resp. 11, ECF No. 377.
All of Defendant Canalichio's requests concern Count One of the Superseding Indictment,1 which avers that Defendant Canalichio and ten other defendants conspired to conduct and participate in the affairs of a racketeering enterprise known as the Philadelphia LCN Family through a pattern of racketeering activity and the collection of unlawful debts. The conspiracy count provides Defendant with adequate notice of the allegations against him, by tracking the language of the federal statute, providing a detailed description of the enterprise and identifying the specific crimes that the members of the conspiracy agreed would be undertaken in furtherance of the illegal purposes of the enterprise. See Eufrasio, 935 F.2d at575. The indictment further provides Defendant Canalichio with adequate notice of the time period, the purposes of the enterprise, the role Defendant had, and specific factual information regarding the manner and means of the scheme. See Second Superseding Indictment 1-31;2 see Wong Tai v. UnitedStates, 273 U.S. 77, 81 (1927) (). Based on the indictment alone a bill of particulars in this case does not appear warranted because the indictment charged Defendant Canalichio with definiteness and reasonable particularity as to the period of the conspiracy, and with conspiring with Defendants Ligambi, Massimino, Borgesi, Angelina, Staino, Lucibello, Barretta, Battaglini, Licata, and Fazzini, and other known3 and unknown conspirators to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).4
Moreover, the Government represents that it has provided voluminous discovery in this case, including: thousands of audio recordings; consensual recordings; Title III documents; progress reports concerning pertinent intercepted communications; surveillance reports; search warrantapplications and affidavits; physical evidence; Brady and Giglio material, including guilty plea agreements, immunity letters, criminal histories, payments and other benefits; business records and tax returns; copies of Defendants' prison mail, visitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial