#Bill of particulars california trial

It is generally sufficient that an indictment set forth the offense in the words of the statute itself as long as those words themselves fully, directly, and expressly, without any uncertainty or ambiguity, set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished. 1992)).Īn indictment is sufficient if it, first, contains the elements of the offense charged and fairly informs a defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and, second, enables him to plead an acquittal of conviction in bar of future prosecutions for the same offense. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not provide for a pre-trial consideration of the available evidence like the summary judgment procedure in Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

#Bill of particulars california trial

A motion to dismiss the indictment cannot be used as a device for a summary trial of the evidence. In a pretrial motion under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(2), the Court is not to consider evidence which does not appear on the face of the indictment. Pretrial motion any defense, objection, or request that the court can determine without a trial of the general issue. FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSEĪn indictment returned by a lawful grand jury which is valid on its face is enough to compel a trial of the charges on the merits. The court issues the following orders on each of the motions. Tim Coker appeared for Trumpower and Steven Lapham appeared for the government. On February 26, 2008, the Court heard oral argument on Trumpower's motions. (3) a motion for depositions under Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (2) a motion to dismiss the indictment for destruction of evidence. (1) a motion to dismiss the indictment for failure to state an offense.

In December 2007 defendant Trumpower filed four pre-trial motions:

The indictment also alleges that from September 1998 to January 2002, Trumpower carried out a fraudulent scheme in which monies were obtained through fraudulent misrepresentations related to an oil exploration venture in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). The indictment alleges that the funds described in both counts were obtained through mail and wire fraud offenses. Count Two alleges that on January 31, 2002, $20,000 was wired from a Citizens Bank account in Nevada City, California to a Trumpower account in the Bank of America in Prescott, Arizona. Count One alleges that on November 13, 2001, Trumpower caused the interstate 'transportation' of $180,000 from Nevada City, California to Prescott, Arizona for deposit into a Trumpower account in the Bank of America. The defendant Michael Trumpower (Trumpower) was indicted October 26, 2006, on two counts of money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. March 4, 2008.Ĭamil Antoinette Skipper, Sacramento, CA for Plaintiff. 546 F.Supp.2d 849 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff,