United States v. Valdez-Morales, 3:15-CR-56
| Decision Date | 04 March 2016 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:15-CR-56,3:15-CR-56 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AMADO VALDEZ-MORALES, MAYRA EDITH BLAIR, LUIS CARVAJAL, BERTHA DEL PILAR VARGAS, MARTIN AYALA, FRANCISCO JAVIER CASTRO-REYES, and LUCERO BELTRAN-CHIMAL, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Tennessee |
(VARLAN / SHIRLEY)
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District Court as may be appropriate. This case is before the Court on the following pretrial motions:
Defendants Bertha Del Pilar Vargas [Doc. 120], Martin Ayala [Doc. 121], Amado Valdez-Morales [Doc. 122], Luis Carvahal [Doc. 124], Francisco Javier Castro-Reyes [Doc. 125] and Mayra Edith Blair [Doc. 126] have moved to join in the motions for a bill of particulars and pinpoint discovery made by Defendant Beltran-Chimal. The Government has responded [Docs. 47 and 132] in opposition to both a bill of particulars and pinpoint discovery. The parties appeared to argue these motions before the undersigned on May 4, 2015, (only Doc. 44) and November 19, 2015. At the conclusion of these hearings, the Court took the motions under advisement.
After reviewing the briefs, arguments, and relevant case law, the Court finds that the Third Superseding Indictment provides sufficient notice of the charges, except that the Government must designate which tax returns it contends are fraudulent. The Court also concludes that the Government has provided the Defendants with the means to "pinpoint" the relevant discovery for themselves.
Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment [Doc. 85] charges the Defendants with conspiring to submit false claims, namely false and fraudulent federal income tax returns, from 2012 to August 8, 2015. Count Two alleges that the Defendants conspired to commit mail fraud over that same time period by mailing false IRS Forms W-7 and false federal income tax returns, which caused the IRS to mail fraudulently-obtained Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITIN's) and treasury checks. Count Three charges the Defendants with conspiring to commit wire fraud between 2012 and August 8, 2015 by electronically filing false federal income taxreturns. Count Four states that the Defendants conspired to commit money laundering between 2012 and August 8, 2015, with the proceeds of the illegal schemes described in Counts One through Three. Finally, Count Five charges Defendant Valdez-Morales with illegal reentry into the United States after having previously been deported.
The Defendants request a bill of particulars, arguing that the instant charges are insufficient to permit them to prepare a defense, to avoid surprise at trial, and to protect against a future double jeopardy violation. They also ask the Court to order the Government to state which discovery applies to each Defendant. The Court will first address the Defendants' motions to join in the motions of Defendant Beltran-Chimal and will then address whether a bill of particulars and/or pinpoint discovery are appropriate in this case.
Defendants Bertha Del Pilar Vargas [Doc. 120], Martin Ayala [Doc. 121], Amado Valdez-Morales [Doc. 122], Luis Carvahal [Doc. 124], Francisco Javier Castro-Reyes [Doc. 125] and Mayra Edith Blair [Doc. 126] have moved to join in the requests for a bill of particulars and pinpoint discovery made by Defendant Beltran-Chimal. These Defendants state that they are similarly situated due to the large amount of discovery in this case and they request the same relief.1 The Court finds the Defendants' motions to join in Defendant Beltran-Chimal's requestsfor a bill of particulars and for pinpoint discovery to be well-taken, and they [Docs. 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, & 126] are GRANTED. The Court now turns to the merits of these motions.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f), the Defendants ask [Docs. 44, 111, & 113]2 the Court to order the Government to provide a bill of particulars specifying which tax returns are alleged to be fraudulent, the overt acts and details regarding overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracies, and the names of all unindicted coconspirators. Additionally, Defendant Blair asks that the Government identify all documents that it intends to introduce at trial. The Defendants argue that this information is necessary to permit them to prepare their defense, to protect against potential double jeopardy violations, and to avoid surprise at trial. They maintain that a bill of particulars is especially necessary in this case, which is factually complex and involves multiple defendants and voluminous discovery.
The Government responds [Docs. 47 & 132] that the Defendants provide no legal or factual basis for a bill of particulars. It argues that the instant Indictment is sufficiently specific to inform the Defendants of the charges against them, to protect them from double jeopardy, and to permit them to prepare for trial. Moreover, the Government maintains that it has provided a "speaking indictment," which details how the offenses were committed and has disclosed full discovery, which obviates the need for any further particularization. It contends that theDefendants' requests for particularization are more in the nature of civil interrogatories and have no place in a criminal prosecution.
"The indictment . . . must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.]" Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). As a general rule, an indictment passes constitutional muster if it "contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense." Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974); United States v. Landham, 251 F.3d 1072, 1079 (6th Cir. 2001) (quoting Hamling). An indictment may allege the charges using the words of the statute itself as long as it gives all the elements of the offense "fully, directly, and expressly[.]" Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117 (quoting United States v. Carll, 105 U.S. 611, 612 (1882)); Landham, 251 F.3d at 1079. Moreover, the statutory language "must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged." Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18 (quoting United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487(1888)); Landham, 251 F.3d at 1079.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) states that "[t]he court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars" and that "[t]he government may amend a bill of particulars subject to such conditions as justice requires." United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369, 1375 (6th Cir. 1993). The granting of a bill of particulars is within the court's discretion. See id. (). The level of detail in the indictment can be a basis for denying the motion for a bill of particulars. Id. Additionally, "a defendant is not entitled to a bill of particulars with respect to information which is available through other sources." United States v. Paulino, 935 F.2d 739, 750 (6th Cir. 1991), superseded on other gnds by statute, United States v. Caseslorente, 220 F.3d 727 (6th Cir. 2000) (on sentencing issue).
First, the Court observes that the Defendants do not allege, and the undersigned does not perceive, any deficiency in the statement of the elements of the offenses charged. The controversy in this case surrounds the sufficiency of the facts alleged in the indictment. The Government argues that it has provided a speaking indictment that gives more than the constitutionally required facts to indicate the specific offenses with which the Defendants are charged. The Defendants disagree and request identification and/or particularization of (1) the fraudulent federal income tax returns and the fraudulently obtained Individual Tax Identification Numbers (ITIN's), (2) the overt acts and details regarding the overt acts committed in furtherance of the alleged conspiracies, (3) the names of unidentified co-conspirators, and (4) the documents that the Government intends to present at trial. The Court examines the need for particularization as to each of the four categories of information requested by the Defendants.
(1) Fraudulent Income Tax Returns and Fraudulently Obtained ITIN's
Defendant Blair asks the Court to order the Government to designate which federal income tax returns it contends are false or fraudulent. She argues that the conspiracy to submit false claims in Counts 1 is alleged to have occurred from 2012 to August 2015. At the November 19 hearing, Attorney Weiss argued that the Defendants received numerous tax returns in discovery, that only some of these tax returns are alleged to be fraudulent, and that counselneeds to know which returns the Defendant will have to...
To continue reading
Request your trial