DOJ-OGR-00003136.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 _ Filed 04/16/21 Page 202 of 239 necessary to the preparation of his defense, and to avoid prejudicial surprise at trial.” United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234 (2d Cir. 1990), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d Cir.2010) (emphasis added) (internal quotation mark omitted). Accordingly, “[a] bill of particulars is required ‘only where the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.’” United States v. Walsh, 194 F.3d 37, 47 (2d Cir. 1999) (quoting Torres, 901 F.2d at 234); see United States v. Mahabub, No. 13 Cr. 908 (AJN), 2014 WL 4243657, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 26, 2014). In exercising its broad discretion to determine whether the charges are so general that they require supplementation through a bill of particulars, the Court should consider not just the text of the Indictment, but also discovery and other information supplied to the defendant to date. See United States v. Bortnovsky, 820 F.2d 572, 574 (2d Cir. 1987); see also, e.g., Pierre-Louis, 2018 WL 4043140, at *7 (denying request for bill of particulars where indictment charged sex trafficking conspiracy spanning two decades because indictment and discovery “would suggest that defendant has enough information to apprise him of the charges with enough precision to enable him to prepare a defense, avoid unfair surprise at trial, and preclude a second prosecution for the same offense”); United States v. Block, No. 16 Cr. 595 (JPO), 2017 WL 1608905, at *6-7 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 28, 2017) (denying request for bill of particulars as to alleged fraud and unindicted co-conspirators where indictment sufficiently advised defendant of nature of charges against him and described with specificity acts he allegedly committed, nature of conspiracy, and explained in language closely tracking statute crimes alleged); United States v. Monserrate, No. 10 Cr. 965 (CM), 2011 WL 3480957, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 4, 2011) (denying request for bill of particulars where discovery and indictment was “sufficient to apprise the defendant of the charge” and to allow him to prepare for trial); United States v. Trippe, 171 F. Supp. 2d 230, 240 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) 175 DOJ-OGR-00003136