DOJ-OGR-00002701.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-AJN Document 148 Filed 02/04/21 Page 8 of 23 the district court. /d. “In deciding whether a bill of particulars is needed, the court must determine whether the information sought has been provided elsewhere, such as in other items provided by discovery, responses made to requests for particulars, prior proceedings, and the indictment itself.” United States v. Strawberry, 892 F. Supp. 519, 526 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). Ms. Maxwell’s ability to prepare her case has already been significantly impaired by not knowing the most basic information about the government’s proof — she still does not know who has accused her of these alleged crimes. Without knowing this fundamental information, Ms. Maxwell has been forced to make assumptions about their identities and attempt to investigate these allegations blindly. If one of the purposes of a bill of particulars is to “prevent surprise,” Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d at 574, there could be no greater “surprise” than for Ms. Maxwell to find out that a few weeks before trial that the people she assumed to be the three accusers were not, in fact, the right people. If that occurs, the defense will have wasted months of investigation work and will not be able to adequately prepare for trial. As we have previously argued (see Dkt. 38), the Court has the inherent authority to compel pretrial disclosure of the identities of government witnesses, and should do so here. See United States v. Cannone, 528 F.2d 296, 301 (2d Cir. 1975);° United States v. Warme, No. O9CR19A, 2009 WL 427111, at *2 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 20, 2009) (ordering government to disclose identity of sex crime victim where “defendant’s ability to adequately prepare a defense against this charge is significantly compromised without being advised of the identity of the alleged victim”). On August 25, 2020, the Court denied as premature our request that the government be ordered to provide the identities of the three accusers. (Dkt. 49). We have conferred with the * In Cannone, the Second Circuit reversed for abuse of discretion the district court’s order to compel disclosure of witness identities under the circumstances of that case. 528 F.2d at 300-02. Nevertheless, Cannone recognized the district courts’ ability to compel disclosure of the identity of government witnesses in appropriate cases. /d at 301. Here, the unique circumstances of this case warrant the disclosure of the accusers’ identities. 4 DOJ-OGR- 00002701