Defendant's motion to strike would typically be a motion made by one of the defendants to throw out the plaintiff's complaint, essentially making the case go away. A memoranum of law in opposition to defendant's motion to strike would usually be plaintiff's legal argument about why the court should not do that.
Full Answer
Indeed, the Sixth Circuit has upheld a denial of a motion for a bill of particulars as to the identity of co-conspirators. "As long as the indictment contained the elements of offense and gave defendant notice of the charges against him, it is not essential that a conspirator know all other conspirators.".
Defendants cite United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063 (3d Cir. 1989) and United States v. Previti, 644 F.2d 318 (4 th Cir. 1981), as authority to support their claim that identities of co-conspirators must be released. These cases are either completely inapposite or factually unrelated. Addressing Previti first, the case deals not at all with the identity of co-conspirators. Rather, Previti's holding concerned whether an indictment failed to charge an offense. Id. at 319. Nowhere does the opinion treat the issue of revealing the identity of a co-conspirator in a bill of particulars.
Defendants also have sufficient information to answer the question as to the dates of the last payments to or among the co-conspirators. Count II alleges overt acts 42-45 and 47-51, which are the checks written by Charles to D & M Investments discussed earlier. These transactions continued into April of 1995, the end date of the conspiracies as alleged in the Indictment. As detailed earlier, the discovery package expands and amplifies the information contained in these overt acts by detailing the entire relationship between Charles and D & M Investments. Defendants already possess the information on this issue and ultimately, proof of these overt acts at trial cannot form the basis for actual surprise and substantial prejudice. Therefore, there is no basis for a Bill.
Moreover, Defendant Baker's admissions to the case agents also demonstrates an understanding of the conspiracies alleged in the Indictment. By outlining the conspiracies and his role in them, and identifying his co-conspirators, Baker simply cannot say that he does not understand the charges or is incapable of preparing a defense. It is hard to imagine better evidence than a defendant's own admissions when deciding whether there has been actual surprise or substantial prejudice.
In addition, the discovery package sent to Defendants expands their knowledge of facts surrounding the Indictment, including every overt act for which there are documents. For example, several overt acts concern checks written by Albert Charles to D & M Investments. Included in the copied documents are the complete records of D & M Investments as they relate to checks written by Al Charles over several years, and include documents relating to the underlying loans which gave rise to the checks. These materials vastly expand Defendants' base of knowledge concerning these overt acts. This is but one example of the type of materials provided to Defendants. This information eliminates any possible claim of "actual surprise and substantial prejudice" and negates the allegations of vagueness and indefiniteness.
The Indictment is nineteen pages in length, beginning with almost five pages of background information regarding the Defendants, their co-conspirators, and a description of the bidding process.
The controlling authority requires a showing of actual surprise and substantial prejudice for granting of a bill of particulars. The United States has provided extensive information to the Defendants, through the Indictment and through discovery. Defendant Baker's admitted knowledge of the conspiracy further negates any surprise and prejudice. This is enough. The United States respectfully requests that this Court deny Defendants' Motion.
For example, let’s say you were injured in an automobile accident while you were driving. You state you had the green light, and you went into the intersection on green.
The mediator also ought to know the particulars of the injury: the number of damages and the amount of money that’s being claimed. For example, let’s say you have a case with a hundred and fifty thousand dollars in medical expenses.
Mediation is confidential. The mediator will begin the mediation settlement hearing process by asking the plaintiff’s attorney if they have anything they want to say about the case. The mediator may ask the injured person if they have anything that they want to say at the settlement conference table.
The big idea of signing the agreement to mediate means that you are agreeing that everything that happens in that mediation settlement conference will remain confidential.
The purpose of mediation is not to argue over who is right or who is wrong. When you are handling personal injury claims, an insurance company will typically pay the damages award and compensation to the injured person. The at-fault person doesn’t need to show up.
You need to let the mediator know that those medical expenses exist so that the mediator is on the same page with you. Prior to the mediation, the attorney representing the injured person, or the plaintiff, put together a mediation package and submits it to the mediator.
Prior to the mediation, it’s likely that the attorney is going to put together a package of documents: medical records, medical reports, lost wage documentation, a copy of the police report, narrative reports from the treating physicians if this was an auto accident, and other documentation to substantiate your claims. Your attorney will put together the package, summarize it and give it to the mediator. Your attorney and the mediator will not give it to the other attorney, but this packet is just to let the mediator know what the case is about as well as the strengths and weaknesses of the case.