UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNIT ED STATES OF AMERICA :
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO, ct. al.. Trial Date: 9/17/84
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an informion apprise the accused of the precise facts constituting the offense charged against her, so that she may understand that charge and how she must prepare to meet it at trial. Kinvov v. District of Columbia, 400 F.2d 761, 130 U.S. App. D.C. 290 (1968); United States v. Jones, 647 F.2d 696 (6th Cir. 1981), cert. denied 454 U.S. 898 (1981); See also , Hackney v. United States, 389 A.2d 1336 (D.C. App. 1978), cert. denied 439 U.S. 1132 (1979) The Rule further provides that, upon a motion for a bill of particulars, it is within the Court's discretion to order the disclosure of particulars not provided in the information in order to so apprise the defendant of the charges she must face. Wills v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1961); United States v. Harbin, 601 F.2d 773 (5th Cir. 1979) cert. denied 444 U.S. 954 (1979); United States v. Baker, 262 F.Supp. 657 ( D.D. C. 1966).
It is clear that the defendant is entitled to information as to the time of day and exact location that the offense took place. United States v. Hubbard, 474 F.Supp. 64 (D.D.C. 1979) See United States v. Fears, 450 F.Supp. 249 (E.D. Tn. 1978) (location of telephone and time of telephone call alleged to willfully convey false information required in bill of panticulars); United States v, Thomas, 299 F. Supp. 494 (E.D. Mo. l968) (bill of particulars ordered specifying time and place of possession of firearm violation); United States v. Roberts, 264 F.Supp. 22 (S.D. N.Y. 1966) (bill of particulars required in regards to time of day of offence). Furthermore, since this defendant is charged with storage of property she is at least entitled to know what property she allegedly stored in order to to prepare her defense, avoid surprise at trial, and plead double jeopardy, if appropriate. United States v. Bonanno, 177 F.Supp. 106 (S.D. N.Y. 1959) (reversed on other grounds,) 285 F.2d 408 (2nd Cir. 1960). United States v.
Learner Co. 215 F.Supp. 603 (D. Hawaii 1963).
It is not the function of a bill of particulars to furnish the defendant with a detailed description of the Government's proof at trial. Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77 (1927). But as is the case here, the defendant has the
right to seek certain particulars that are relevant to her understanding the factual allegations contained in the information and that are designed to Permit. her to prepare for the litigation.
WHEREFORE, Ms. Picciotto respectfully requests this Court to order the Government to provide her with a bill of particulars. Respectfully submitted,
PHYLLIS B. TATIK
GEORGETOWN CRIMINAL JUSTICE CLINIC
605 to Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001