The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Defendant Cirino Gonzalez's motion for a bill of particulars in his criminal case. The court found that the third superseding indictment provided Gonzalez enough details to prepare his defense, avoid unfair surprises at trial, and assert double jeopardy without requiring further specifics from the government.
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Defendant Cirino Gonzalez's motion for a bill of particulars in his criminal case. The court found that the third superseding indictment provided Gonzalez enough details to prepare his defense, avoid unfair surprises at trial, and assert double jeopardy without requiring further specifics from the government.
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Defendant Cirino Gonzalez's motion for a bill of particulars in his criminal case. The court found that the third superseding indictment provided Gonzalez enough details to prepare his defense, avoid unfair surprises at trial, and assert double jeopardy without requiring further specifics from the government.
The United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire denied Defendant Cirino Gonzalez's motion for a bill of particulars in his criminal case. The court found that the third superseding indictment provided Gonzalez enough details to prepare his defense, avoid unfair surprises at trial, and assert double jeopardy without requiring further specifics from the government.
Copyright:
Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1/ 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal No. 07-189-GZS
DANIEL RILEY, JASON GERHARD,
CIRINO GONZALEZ, and ROBERT WOLFFE Defendants
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT GONZALEZ’S
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Now before the Court is Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion for Bill of Particulars
(Docket No. 176). The Government has objected to the Motion (Docket No. 215).
Defendant Gonzalez’s Motion shall be granted only if “in the absence of a more detailed
specification, will be disabled from preparing a defense, caught by unfair surprise at trial,
or hampered in seeking the shelter of the Double Jeopardy Clause.” United States v.
Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161, 1192-93 (1st Cir. 1993) (citing United States v. Abreu, 952
F.2d 1458, 1469 (1st Cir. 1992) (collecting cases)). After a careful review, the Court
does not find that the Third Superseding Indictment reveals a material inability to prepare
a defense, untenable surprise, or other potential prejudice such that it is necessary to
mandate further particulars. The Court, therefore, ORDERS that Defendant Gonzalez’s
Motion for a Bill of Particulars be, and it is hereby, DENIED.
Virginia Dare Neely, of The Estate of Charles A. Neely, Deceased, On His Behalf and On Behalf of All Members of A Class Similarly Situated v. United States, 554 F.2d 114, 3rd Cir. (1977)
