Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
3
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***
Plaintiff,
v.
9
10
Defendants.
11
12
This matter is before the court on Defendants Peter T. Santilli, Jr., O. Scott Drexler, Eric
13
J. Parker,1 Micah L. McGuire, Jason D. Woods,2 and Steven A. Stewarts Motions for Bill of
14
Particulars (ECF Nos. 376, 448, 485, 551) (the Motions). These Motions are referred to the
15
undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and LR IB 1-3 of the Local Rules of Practice.
16
The court has considered the Motions, the Governments Responses (ECF Nos. 458, 519, 552,
17
18
I.
19
On February 17, 2016, a federal grand jury returned an Indictment (ECF. No. 5) against
20
Defendant Cliven D. Bundy, his sons, Defendants Ryan C. Bundy and Ammon E. Bundy, as well
21
as Defendants Ryan W. Payne and Peter T. Santilli, Jr. A Superseding Indictment (ECF. No. 27)
22
was returned March 2, 2016, adding 14 new Defendants: Melvin D. Bundy, David H. Bundy,3
23
Gerald A. Delemus, Eric J. Parker, O. Scott Drexler, Richard R. Lovelien, Steven A. Stewart,
24
Todd C. Engel, Gregory P. Burleson, Micah L. McGuire, and Jason D. Woods. A total of 19
25
1
26
27
28
Defendant Parker was given leave to join Defendant Drexlers motion. See Order (ECF No. 574).
Defendant Woods was given leave to join Defendant Stewarts motion. See Order (ECF No. 632).
Defendant Melvin D. Bundy represents that his true name is Mel Dallen Bundy. See Minutes of
Proceedings (ECF. No. 143). Defendant David H. Bundy represents that his correct name is Dave H.
Bundy. See Dave Bundy Memo. Oppn Protective Order (ECF. No. 347).
defendants are now charged. The Defendants made their initial appearances in this case between
March 4, 2016, and April 15, 2016. All 19 Defendants are currently joined for trial pursuant to
the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161. See Apr. 26, 2016 Case Mgmt. Order
A.
The Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 27) spans 64 pages with 153 paragraphs of
allegations and an additional 46 paragraphs of charges. Defendants are charged with 16 counts
of: conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371;
conspiracy to impede or injure a federal officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 372; use and carry of
10
11
officer in violation of 18 U.S.C. 111(a)(1) and (b); threatening a federal law enforcement
12
13
14
of 18 U.S.C. 1951; and interstate travel in aid of extortion in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1952.
15
Id. 154186. The Superseding Indictment also contains five forfeiture allegations against all
16
17
This case arises from a series of incidents that occurred in and around Bunkerville,
18
Nevada, in April 2014. The Superseding Indictment alleges that the 19 Defendants planned,
19
organized, conspired, led, and/or participated as gunmen in a massive armed assault against
20
federal law enforcement officers to threaten, intimidate, and extort the officers into abandoning
21
approximately 400 head of cattle owned by Cliven Bundy. Id. 1, 4. Law enforcement officers
22
acted pursuant to three orders issued by a federal district court to seize and remove the cattle
23
from federal public lands based on Cliven Bundys refusal to obtain the legally-required permits
24
or pay the required fees to keep and graze his cattle on the land. Id. 23.
25
The alleged leader, organizer, and chief beneficiary of the conspiracy is Cliven Bundy.
26
Id. 60. His sons, Ammon, Ryan, Dave, and Mel Bundy are also alleged leaders and organizers
27
of the conspiracy, id. 61, 64, as are Payne and Santilli. Id. 6263. Cavalier, Cooper,
28
OShaughnessy, and Delmus are alleged mid-level leaders and organizers of the conspiracy.
2
Id. 6568. Parker, Drexler, Stewart, McGuire, Woods, Lovelien, Engel, and Burleson are
alleged co-conspirators, armed gunmen, id. 6971, 7576, and followers who threatened
and used force and violence to prevent law enforcement officers from discharging their duties
and coerced their consent to abandon the cattle that were, pursuant to Court Order, lawfully in
their care and custody and which they were duty-bound to protect. Id. 57; see also 46.
The Superseding Indictment alleges that on March 14, 2014, the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM) formally notified Cliven Bundy that impoundment operations would take
place. Id. 49. Cliven Bundy subsequently threatened to interfere with those operations by
publically stating that he was ready to do battle with the BLM and he and his followers would
10
Law
11
enforcement officers began a removal operation on April 5. Id. 4. On April 810, Santilli
12
broadcasted words and images over the internet to recruit gunmen and other followers to travel
13
to Cliven Bundys ranch (the Bundy ranch) in Bunkerville, Nevada, to stop the removal
14
operation. Id. 92, 93, 9596, 104, 106, 108, 11011. Between April 1011, Defendants
15
Drexler, McGuire, Stewart, Woods, and Parker traveled with their firearms from Idaho and
16
17
By April 12, the BLM had seized and corralled approximately 400 head of cattle at an
18
impoundment site, awaiting shipment to auction outside of Nevada. Id. 4245, 123. On April
19
12, Defendants and hundreds of recruited followers executed a plan to recover the cattle by
20
force, threats, and intimidation (the April 2014 Confrontation). Id. 12445. Defendants
21
and the followers demanded that officers leave and abandon the cattle. Id. 134, 137, 141, 143.
22
They threatened to use force if the officers did not do so. Id. 13841. Armed gunman took
23
sniper positions behind concrete barriers and aimed their assault rifles at the officers. Id. 139
24
40. Defendants and the followers outnumbered the officers by more than 4 to 1 and the potential
25
firefight posed a threat to the lives of the officers as well as unarmed bystanders, which included
26
children. Id. 133, 136. Thus, the officers were forced to leave and abandon the impounded
27
cattle. Id. 142, 145. After the April 2014 Confrontation, leaders and organizers of the
28
conspiracy organized armed security patrols and checkpoints in and around the Bundy ranch to
3
deter and prevent any future law enforcement actions against Cliven Bundy or his co-
conspirators and to protect the cattle from future removal actions. Id. 14653.
B.
On April 22, 2016, the court held a scheduling and case management conference. See
Order (ECF. No. 198), Proposed Complex Case Schedule (ECF. No. 270); Mins. of Proceedings
(ECF. No. 327). The court heard from all parties and found that this case is complex within the
meaning of 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B) based in part on: (i) the number of Defendants and
criminal charges, (ii) the voluminous discovery, (iii) the number of law enforcement officers and
witnesses involved, and (iv) because 7 of the 19 Defendants are also facing criminal prosecution
10
11
Discovery in this case is voluminous. Id.; see also July 15, 2016 Order (ECF No. 608).
12
Discovery includes 1.4 terabytes of digital data, consisting of hundreds of hours of video and
13
audio recordings made by law enforcement officers involved in the April 2014 events along with
14
audio and video recordings posted on social media and other sources. Id. Additionally, the
15
16
17
Defendants and third-parties Facebook accounts. Id. Discovery also includes approximately
18
23 search warrants, search warrant applications, and supporting affidavits that are also
19
voluminous, consisting of 40 to 60 pages each on average. Id. At least 100 law enforcement
20
officers from many different law enforcement agencies were involved in the events and
21
investigation.
22
enforcement officers, national media outlets, and social media. Id. Over 100 witness interviews
23
were also conducted in the investigation, which is still ongoing. Id. The court appointed a
24
25
resolving accessibility of digitally stored data, and provide expertise in dealing with copying
26
issues or corrupted file issues and the like. See May 3, 2016 Order (ECF No. 363).
The government proposed and the court approved three phases of discovery disclosures:
27
28
Id.
///
4
Rule 16(a)(l)(E).
Phase I (i) Search warrants, applications, and affidavits relating to the search and
Phase III All police or investigative reports relating to the charges in the
10
See Case Mgmt. Order (ECF. No. 321). Pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. 3500, the
11
government also proposed to disclose statements or reports of the witnesses it intends to call at
12
13
government agreed to disclose these materials 30 days before trial even though the Jencks Act
14
only requires the government to make such disclosures after a witness has been called to testify
15
on direct examination. See Order (ECF No. 608) at 20; 18 U.S.C. 3500(b).
The
16
The court ordered the government to produce Phase I and II discovery by May 6, 2016.
17
Case Mgmt. Order (ECF. No. 321) at 13. No date was ordered for Phase III or the other
18
categories of discovery on which no agreement was reached. The government represents that it
19
produced Phases I and II of discovery on May 6, and Phase III on June 20. See Govt Resp.
20
(ECF No. 580) at 3. With its production of Phases I and II, the government included a detailed
21
index describing the information and the location of the digital folders containing such
22
information. Id. Phase III discovery consists of over 7,400 pages of investigative reports related
23
24
After the court entered the Case Management Order, the parties met and conferred but
25
could not reach an agreement regarding a stipulated protective order. The court entered a
26
Temporary Protective Order (ECF. No. 392) pending a decision on the merits of the
27
governments motion for protective order. The court entered an Order (ECF No. 608) granting
28
in part and denying in part the governments motion for protective order.
5
The court
acknowledged the press and publics qualified right to access to judicial records and proceedings,
but found no common law or First Amendment right to access to pretrial discovery. Id. at
19:2720:1.
Additionally, the court found that the government agreed to produce more than it is
required to produce in pretrial discovery, and at an earlier time, provided that a protective order
10
Much of the discovery the government has produced and agreed to produce,
subject to a protective order, is information the Defendants are not entitled to
receive until after a witness testifies on direct examination at trial. Some of the
discovery the government has agreed to produce, subject to a protective order, is
information the government is not required to produce at all, such as reports and
memoranda of investigating agents. See Fed R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2).
11
Id. at 21:1419. The court concluded that a protective order would facilitate defense access to
12
materials they are not entitled to receive and/or would not receive until trial. Id. at 21. The court
13
entered its own form of protective order, which was tailored to allow Defendants to receive the
14
additional discovery materials while not restricting dissemination of materials already in the
15
public domain. Id. at 2122; see also Protective Order (ECF No. 609).
16
II.
8
9
17
A.
Legal Standard
18
Rule 7 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows criminal defendants to request
19
a bill of particulars. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) (The court may direct the government to file a bill of
20
particulars.). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to minimize the danger of surprise at trial
21
and to provide sufficient information on the nature of the charges to allow preparation of a
22
defense. United States v. Mitchell, 744 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1984). The Ninth Circuit has
23
26
[1] to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient
precision to enable him to prepare for trial, [2] to avoid or minimize the danger of
surprise at the time of trial, and [3] to enable him to plead his acquittal or
conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment
itself is too vague, and indefinite for such purposes.
27
United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979) (quoting United States v. Brimley,
28
529 F.2d 103, 108 (6th Cir. 1976)); see also United States v. Burt, 765 F.2d 1364, 1367 (9th Cir.
24
25
1985)). The function and purpose of a bill of particulars is served when the indictment itself
provides sufficient details of the charges and the Government provides full discovery to the
defense. Mitchell, 744 F.2d at 705. The court should consider whether the defendant has been
advised adequately of the charges through the indictment and all other disclosures made by the
government. United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983). A meritorious
motion should specify any prejudice or surprise that would result from the denial of his request
for a bill of particulars. United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 898 (9th Cir. 1985). The
decision of whether or not to grant a motion for a bill of particulars is committed to the discretion
10
The Ninth Circuit has expressly held that a bill of particulars is not required to identify
11
exact details sought by defendants. DiCesare, 765 F.2d at 89798. A defendant has no right to
12
know all the evidence the government intends to produce, but only the theory of the
13
governments case. Giese, 597 F.2d at 1181. For example, a bill of particulars is not warranted
14
to provide the following kinds of details: (1) to obtain the names of any unknown
15
coconspirators; (2) to determine the exact date on which the conspiracy allegedly began; and (3)
16
to delineate all other overt acts that comprised the charged activity. DiCesare, 765 F.2d at 897
17
98 (citing United States v. Long, 449 F.2d 288, 29495 (8th Cir. 1971) (exact times); Wilkins v.
18
United States, 376 F.2d 552, 56263 (5th Cir. 1967) (names of all coconspirators); Cook v.
19
United States, 354 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir. 1965) (all overt acts)). Evidentiary details such as the
20
who, what, when, where, and why of the crimes alleged fall within the scope of discovery and do
21
not warrant a bill of particulars. United States v. Ellis, 121 F. Supp. 3d 927, 941 (N.D. Cal.
22
2015). A defendants constitutional right is to know the offense with which he is charged, not
23
to know the details of how it will be proved. United States v. Grace, 401 F. Supp. 2d 1103,
24
1107 (D. Mont. 2005) (citing United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 135 (9th Cir. 1981)).
25
Additionally, the government is not required to disclose its theory of liability as to each
26
defendant in a bill of particulars, as long as full discovery is provided to the defense. Ellis, 121
27
F. Supp. 3d at 942 (citing United States v. Buckner, 610 F.2d 570, 574 (9th Cir. 1979)
28
(Assuming, as we do, that all relevant facts were disclosed and available, the government is not
7
obliged to disclose the theory under which it will proceed.)). Full discovery obviates the need
for a bill of particulars. Id. at 941 (quoting Giese, 597 F.2d at 1180).
B.
Defendants Position
The court will collectively summarize the positions of Defendants Drexler, McGuire,
Stewart, Woods, and Parker since they are similarly situated as alleged gunmen, followers, and
co-conspirators and their Motions present parallel arguments. See Defs. Mots. (ECF Nos. 448,
485, 551).
Defendant Santillis Motion (ECF No. 376) and his unique First Amendment
1.
10
Defendants Motions seek a bill of particulars to require the government to identify the
11
nature of the charges against them with more particularity. Defendants submit approximately 25
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
intimidated, and/or threatened, and where any such officers went afterwards.
21
22
23
The location where the alleged interstate commerce began and was to end.
24
The buyer and seller of the 400 head of cattle, including their locations.
25
The specific property the government is requesting that each Defendant forfeit.
The specific alleged acts, overt acts, or conduct the government is alleging in
The names, job titles, employers, descriptions, and duties of the actual law
The place where such duties began and then where officers left so that the officers
The location of any officers at the times such officers were allegedly induced,
26
In addition, for the offenses charged more than once, Defendants seek a bill of particulars to
27
distinguish the overt acts for each count, e.g., distinguishing the overt acts for count six from the
28
Defendants acknowledge that the discovery in this case is voluminous, and the
government only recently began providing discovery. See, e.g., McGuires Mot. (ECF No. 485)
at 1; Stewarts Mot. (ECF No. 551) at 2. However, they argue they cannot properly prepare a
defense, prevent prejudicial surprise at trial, or protect against double jeopardy without the
requested information. See Drexlers Mot. (ECF No. 448) at 56. They also acknowledge that
the function of the bill of particulars is not ordinarily to provide a defendant with the names of
government witnesses. Stewarts Reply (ECF No. 606) at 3. But, given the large number of
people and law enforcement officers involved in the April 2014 Confrontation, they claim they
will undoubtedly suffer prejudicial surprise unless the government identifies the officers before
10
trial. Id. The Superseding Indictments scant reference to each Defendant by name further
11
12
Defendants maintain they are not asking for the who, what, when, why, where, and how of
13
every alleged act, but are seeking some specificity beyond rote allegations.
14
Defendants assert that their need to know the evidentiary details establishing the facts of the
15
16
Id. at 5.
Defendant Santilli
17
Defendant Santillis Motion asserts that the government is prosecuting him for speech
18
protected by the First Amendment. See Mot. (ECF No. 376) at 2. Santilli asserts that reporting
19
the BLMs activities or advocating a position on the Peter Santilli Show does not rise to the
20
level necessary to create unlawful speech. Id. at 3. He seeks a bill of particulars to require the
21
government to provide details of all the speech for which he will stand trial because the
22
Superseding Indictment relies on generalized statements that do not inform him of the specific
23
conduct alleged.
24
Confrontation includes anyone in the Bunkerville area who is not a government employee.
25
Reply (ECF No. 476) at 3. The intent of each Defendant regarding the charges is sufficiently
26
different as each Defendant had different reasons for being in Bunkerville. Id. at 2. Thus,
27
28
Id.
Santilli argues that the conspiracy count related to the April 2014
media that is recording the events that unfolded on April 9 and 12, 2014.
being prosecuted.
Specify which episodes of Santillis show contain unlawful speech for which he is
Additionally, or alternatively, Santilli asks the court for an order similar to the one the
Honorable Anna J. Brown entered in the District of Oregon in United States v. Bundy et al., Case
No. 3:16-cr-00051-BR. There, Judge Brown denied a motion for bill of particulars but still
10
11
12
13
See Reply (ECF No. 476) at 2 (quoting May 26, 2016 Order (D. Or. ECF No. 614)). Santilli
14
contends that the charges in the Oregon case are somewhat similar in that protestors and
15
government employees disagreed as to the rightful possession, and control over land currently
16
managed by the BLM. Id. Because it is impossible to understand exactly what conduct the
17
government is presenting as unlawful in their Superseding Indictment, he asks the court to order
18
the government to provide statements similar to what Judge Brown did in the Oregon case. Id.
19
Defendant Stewarts Reply (ECF No. 606) also requests an order similar to Judge Browns order.
20
Although Stewarts 25 questions are more specific, he argues they request the same thing.
21
Id. at 2.
22
Because both Santilli and Stewart made these requests in their reply briefs, the
23
C.
24
The government argues that the 63-page Superseding Indictment amply describes the
25
counts charged, the Defendants roles in the conspiracy, and the overt acts committed in
26
furtherance of the conspiracy. See Resps. (ECF Nos. 458, 519, 552, 580). In its 153 paragraphs
27
of allegations, the Superseding Indictment details the events leading up to the April 2014
28
Confrontation, the April 2014 Confrontation itself, and the post-April 2014 Confrontation events
10
Indictment, the government contends that Defendants are fully informed of the nature of the
charges against them and the theory of each Defendants criminal liability. The government
to achieve them.
Paragraphs 5559 detail the objects of the conspiracy and the manner and means used
Paragraphs 6076 describe the role of each of the conspirators, including Santilli,
10
11
12
conspiracy on April 12, 2014, describing the assault and extortion in detail.
13
14
15
In addition, the government argues that the court should deny the motions because
16
Defendants have the benefit of fulsome discovery, including hundreds of hours of recordings and
17
18
fulsome, but was accompanied by a detailed index describing the information disclosed in Phases
19
I and II and the location of the digital folders containing such information. See Resp. (ECF
20
No. 580) at 3. Phase III discovery provided over 7,400 additional pages of investigative reports
21
and other related information. Id. As such, the government has done more than it is required to
22
do, and Defendants are not entitled to have the government walk through its case. Defendants
23
have enough information to understand what they are charged with, to avoid surprise at trial, and
24
25
26
27
28
With regard to Santillis First Amendment argument, the government contends that his
two requests are irrelevant to the criminal charges and inappropriate for a bill of particulars:
Santilli is not charged for being a blog host, for making speeches or for using
offensive language he is charged with conspiracy. There is nothing about
the First Amendment that immunizes him from conspiracy liability based on his
11
1
2
3
supposed status as a blogger. There is nothing about the First Amendment that
shields him from prosecution for using the internet to recruit gunmen to threaten
federal law enforcement officers. There is nothing about the First Amendment
that magically transforms the language he used to further a criminal conspiracy
and to threaten federal officers into protected speech.
Resp. (ECF No. 458) at 7:911, 7:1724. Furthermore, the Superseding Indictment does, in fact,
set out the details of Santillis role and activities in the conspiracy. Id. at 6 (citing Superseding
numerous calls to arms and threats and quote specific language used in the course of making the
Superseding Indictment and the indexed disclosures adequately address Santillis requests.
Id. at 8.
10
D.
Analysis
11
The court finds that the language of the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 27) is detailed
12
and clear, and when read as a whole, it sufficiently informs Defendants of the charges against
13
them. The Superseding Indictment expressly alleges that Defendants Parker, Drexler, Stewart,
14
McGuire, and Woods were co-conspirators, armed gunmen, and followers who threatened
15
and used force and violence to prevent law enforcement officers from discharging their duties
16
and coerced the officers consent to abandon Cliven Bundys cattle. See, e.g., id. 57, 6971,
17
7576. Although the Superseding Indictment does not include many specific references to
18
Parker, Drexler, Stewart, McGuire, and Woods, the document refers to gunmen at least 72
19
times and followers at least 80 times. The court finds that the 63-page Superseding Indictment
20
21
Although one or more Defendants claim otherwise, in actuality the Motions ask for the
22
who, what, when, where, and why of the crimes alleged, which are questions that fall within the
23
scope of discovery and do not warrant a bill of particulars. See Ellis, 121 F. Supp. 3d at 941.
24
They repeatedly ask for exact overt acts or specific acts or conduct in reference to particular
25
paragraphs or counts. Defendants ask for names, job titles, employers, descriptions, and duties
26
of the actual law enforcement officers involved in the April 2014 Confrontation and the
27
surrounding events.
28
relationships, and property subject to forfeiture. Notably, the requests for specifics regarding the
12
forfeiture allegations do not comport with the express language of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.2(a) (The indictment or information need not identify the
property subject to forfeiture or specify the amount of any forfeiture money judgment that the
government seeks.). Defendants questions plainly seek evidentiary details and what amounts
to a roadmap of the governments casethey do not justify a bill of particulars. See DiCesare,
In contrast to the gunmen, Santilli is an alleged leader and organizer of the conspiracy.
Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 27) 63. The Superseding Indictment contains at least 44
references to Defendant Santilli by name, and numerous direct quotes that Santilli allegedly
10
made on his show, id. 9293, 104, 106, 108, 11011, and directly to the BLMs Special
11
Agent-in-Charge, id. 102, 115. The allegations against Santilli provide sufficient information
12
about the nature of the charges and the theory of the governments case to allow him to prepare
13
his defense. Santilli is not entitled to a bill of particulars to identify each episode of his show
14
allegedly evidencing his recruiting statements or the details of all the speech the government
15
16
Additionally, given the ample discovery disclosures Defendants have received, which
17
exceed the requirements set by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Jencks Act, the
18
court finds that denial of a bill of particulars will not result in prejudice or surprise. All but one
19
of the Motions expressly describe discovery in this case as voluminous. See Mots. (ECF
20
Nos. 376, 485, 551). Discovery includes hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings and
21
hundreds of thousands of pages of documents, images, and communications. See Case Mgmt.
22
23
provided Defendants with an index describing the information and the location of the digital
24
folders containing such information. See, e.g., Govt Resp. (ECF No. 580) at 3. The court has
25
previously found that the government is producing more than it is required and at an earlier time.
26
Order (ECF No. 608) at 20. The government has therefore provided full discovery and obviated
27
the need for a bill or particulars. See Ellis, 121 F. Supp. 3d at 941 (quoting Giese, 597 F.2d at
28
1180).
13
The court declines to issue an order directing the government to provide each defendant
with a factual statement similar to Judge Browns Order (D. Or. ECF No. 614) because the
charging documents in these two cases are markedly different. The indictment in the Oregon
case names 26 defendants and consists of a scant four pages in contrast to the 63-page
Indictment (D. Or. ECF No. 250) with Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 27). Additionally,
Judge Browns Order required a statement as to whether the Oregon Defendants criminal
liability is as a principal, an aider and abettor, or both. However, in this case, the government
clearly alleges each Defendants role as either a (i) leader and organizer, (ii) mid-level leader and
10
11
Conspirators, at 1518, 6076. The Superseding Indictment in this case also alleges 76
12
paragraphs of overt acts, spanning approximately 20 pages. Id., Section VII.D. Overt Acts in
13
14
The court concludes that the indictment sufficiently informs Defendants of the nature of
15
the charges to allow them to prepare a defense, avoid any unfair surprise at trial, and plead
16
double jeopardy in any subsequent prosecution. For the foregoing reasons, Defendants Motions
17
are denied.
18
Accordingly,
19
20
Micah L. McGuire, Jason D. Woods, and Steven A. Stewarts Motions for Bill of Particulars
21
22
23
24
PEGGY A. LEEN
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
25
26
27
28
14