UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Criminal No. 84-255

v. Judge Joyce Hens Green

Motions Hearing and Trial:

9/17/84

WAYNE THOMAS

ELLEN B. THOMAS

ROBERT DORROUGH

WILLIAM THOMAS

DAVID MANNING

CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO

ANTHONY NELSON

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Ellen Benjamin Thomas, through her counsel, respectfully requests this Court, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 7(f) and 16, to direct the United States to file a bill of particulars for the following reasons:

1. Ellen Thomas was arraigned on July 13, 1984 on a single count information charging a violation of 36 C.F.R., Sections 50.5 and 50.27 (camping and storage) on June 6, 1984.

2. The information fails to specify what activities Ellen Thomas was allegedly engaged in which constitute camping (see Information line 7 "...including activities and making preparation to sleep...").

3. The information fails to specify what property Ellen Thomas allegedly stored.

4. An informal discovery conference with Assistant United States Attorney Pamela Stuart was held on JULY 25, 1984. At that time defense counsel made a bona fide attempt, pursuant to Fed. R. Cr. P. 16 to ascertain the particulars of the crime charged with respect to Ellen Thomas.

5. Because Ellen Thomas has been engaged in a vigil in the White House vicinity, and because other persons are similarly engaged, and because "stored property" has been seized from various persons on numerous occasions, she must be apprised of exactly what "stored property" the government attributes to her, and what illegal "activities" she allegedly performed, in order to conduct her own investigation, to prepare an adequate defense, to avoid the danger of surprise at trial and for protection from future jeopardy.

WHEREFORE, Ellen Thomas respectfully requests that this Court grant her Motion for Bill of Particulars and order the government to disclose the time and exact location of the alleger camping, the "activities" Ellen Thomas engaged in, and the property she allegedly stored.

Respectfully submitted,

__/s/Stephen G. Milliken__

STEPHEN G. MILLIKEN

Milliken & Van Susteren, P.C.

511 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202) 393-7676

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing was mailed, postage prepaid, to Assistant U.S. Attorney Pamela Stuart, U.S. Courthouse, Constitution Avenue and John Marshall Place, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20001; to Phyllis B. Tatik, Esquire, Juvenile Justice Clinic, 605 G Street, N.W., Third Floor, Washington, D.C. 20001; to Robert DeBerardinis, Esquire, 1534 16th Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036; to Mark Venuti, Esquire, 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20009; and to Richard Seligman, 2001 S Street, N.W., Suite 630, Washington, D.C. 20009; this 31st day of July, 1984.

__/s/STEPHEN G. MILLIKEN__

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :

: Criminal No. 84-255

v. : Judge Joyce Hens Green

: Motions Hearing and Trial

: 9/17/84

WAYNE THOMAS :

ELLEN B. THOMAS :

ROBERT DORROUGH :

WILLIAM THOMAS :

DAVID MANNING :

CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO :

ANTHONY NELSON :

MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7 requires that an information 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. Kinoy 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. Wells v. United States, 389 U.S. 90 (1967); 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).

Since this defendant is charged with storage of property she is at least entitled to know what property she allegedly stored in order 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 proof of 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 of the factual allegations contained in the information and that are designed to permit her to prepare for the litigation.

WHEREFORE, Ellen Thomas respectfully requests this Court to order the Government to provide her with a bill of particulars. Respectfully submitted,

__/s/ Sthephen G. Milliken__

STEPHEN . MILLIKEN

Milliken & Van Susteren, P.C.

511 E Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20001

(202)393-7676

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Criminal No. 84-255
Judge Joyce Hens Green
Motions Hearing and Trial
9/17/84

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : v. :
WAYNE THOMAS :
ELLEN B. THOMAS
ROBERT DORROUGH :
WILLIAM THOMAS
DAVID MANNING :
CONCEPCION PICCIOTTO
ANTHONY NELSON :

ORDER

This matter having come before the Court on Defendant Ellen Thomas' Motion for Bill of Particulars, and the Court having considered the Motion and Memorandum In

Support Thereof and the Government's Opposition, now, this _____ day of __________, 1984, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED

Defendant Ellen Thomas' Motion for Bill of Particulars is GRANTED.

/s/____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Listing of Cases

Proposition One

Peace Park | People