NORMAN L. VROMAN
Lawyer
c/o General Delivery
Hopland, California
IN PROPRIA PERSONA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) No. 91 0213 EFL
)
) MOTION FOR BILL OF
) PARTICULARS
PLAINTIFF, )
)
v. )
)
NORMAN LEON VROMAN )
)
DEFENDANT. )
________________________________)
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
Because the indictment in this matter is totally devoid of
any reference to Title 26, IRC setting forth the statute,
code or regulation imposing a requirement to file a return
or imposing a tax liability upon the defendant, and because
the defense in this case rests in a large part upon the
Plaintiff's failure to comply with Title 44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq and Title 5 U.S.C. 552 et seq, defendant MOVES THIS
COURT for an order directing the prosecution to file and
serve a written Bill of Particulars, stating the following
so that the defendant may adequately prepare his defense:
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 1 of 9
1. Counts I - V in the indictment allege that the
defendant failed to make an income tax return to the
Director of District Director of the Internal Revenue
Service (IRS). With reference to each such count the
defendant requests the following information:
a. Cite the specific Return which the defendant is
alleged to have failed to make;
b. Cite the specific and relevant authority that would
authorize the Director or District Director of the IRS to
require the defendant to make a return;
c. Cite the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Clearance Number assigned to the Return form and
instructions for completing said form as required by Title
44 USCA, sections 3501 - 3520 inclusive;
d. If the government is relying on IRC section 6012,
cite the date of publication of the returns, statements and
lists in the Federal Register as required by Title 5 USCA,
section 522.
e. With respect to the Director or District Director of
the Internal Revenue Service, state with particularity the
Division to which said Director or District Director of the
Internal Revenue are assigned;
2. Counts II - V of the indictment allege that the
defendant received "Gross Income." With reference to such
counts, the defendant requests the following information:
a. State in concise and particular detail the taxable
charged activity in which it is alleged that the defendant
was engaged;
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 2 of 9
b. The cite to the specific federal tax Regulation that
levies a tax upon the activities in which the defendant was
engaged;
3. Counts II - V of the indictment allege that the
defendant was obligated to state specifically the items of
his gross income and any deductions and credits to which he
was entitled. With reference to each such count, the
defendant requests the following information:
a. The cite of the federal tax Regulation that
expressly entitles persons such as the defendant to earned
income deductions and credits.
4. Counts I - V of the indictment allege that the
defendant was "required by law" to make a return. Cite the
specific Code, Statute or Regulation that requires the
making of such a return.
5. Count I of the indictment alleges that the defendant
falsely claimed that he was exempt from income tax
withholding requirements. With reference to that allegation,
defendant requests the following information:
a. Cite the Code, Statute or Regulation which imposed a
income tax withholding requirement upon the defendant.
WHEREFORE the defendant moves the court to grant this
motion. The defendant further respectfully requests the
court, if and to the extent it exercises its discretion in
denying any part or aspect of the foregoing requests, to
indicate in terms that appear on the record, the basis and
the reason or reasons for exercising its discretion in so
denying said requests. United States v. Wells (7th Cir.,
1967) 387 F.2d 807.
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 3 of 9
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS
I.
DEFENDANT WILL BE UNABLE
TO ADEQUATELY DEFEND AGAINST
THE INSTANT CHARGES WITHOUT
FURTHER PARTICULARIZING OF ALLEGATIONS
Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
provides that the court may direct the filing of a Bill of
Particulars upon a motion by the defendant. The functions
of such a motion are to provide a defendant with information
about the details of the charges necessary to the
preparation of the defense, avoid prejudicial surprise at
trial, and protect against a second prosecution based upon
the same set of facts. Yeargain v. United States 314 F.2d
881, 882 (9th Cir.1963); United States v. Bearden 423 F.2d
805, 8098 (5th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 836.
As originally promulgated, Rule 7(f) required a showing
of cause before a Bill would lie. That requirement was
stricken by the amendment of 1966, which was expressly
designed "to encourage a more liberal attitude by the courts
towards bills of particulars." See Rule 7(f), Advisory
Committee note to the 1966 amendment.
The granting, or refusal to grant, a Bill of
Particulars is a matter within the discretion of the trial
court. United States v. Dreitzler 572 F.2d 539, 553 (9th
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 4 of 9
Cir. 1978). The test in ruling on such a motion is whether
deprivation of the information sought will render the
defendant unable to prepare a defense, avoid surprise, or
avoid later risking double jeopardy. United States v.
Addonizio 451 F.2d 49, 63-64 (3d Cir.1971), cert.den. 405
U.S. 936. A defendant should not be deprived of information
needed to prepare a defense, simply because the information
might be used by the government as evidence. United States
v. Crisona 271 F.2d 156 (S.D.N.Y.1967).
Moreover, a motion for a Bill of Particulars cannot be
denied on the theory a defendant "knows" what he or she
"did." Such a ruling effectively stands the presumption of
innocence on its head, in assuming the defendant has
knowledge of his own acts, which were in fact "guilty."
See, United States v. Tanner 279 F.Supp. 683, 695-696
(D.Del.1971).
Although a defendant may not use a Bill of Particulars
to ascertain all of the evidence which the government
intends to produce, a defendant is entitled to know the
theory of the government's case as to each count. Yeargain
v. United States, supra, 314 F.2d at 882. As noted in the
Opinion of Judge Whittaker, cited with approval in the
advisory committee note to the 1966 amendment to Rule 7(f):
It seems quite clear that where charges in an
indictment are so general that they do not sufficiently
advise the defendant of the specific acts with which he
is charged, a bill of particulars should be ordered.
United States v. Smith 16 F.R.D. 372, 375
(W.D.Mo.1954).
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 5 of 9
Moreover, because a Bill of Particulars has a
fundamental connection to the Sixth Amendment right to
defend, doubt must be resolved in favor of disclosure and
the public interest in giving the accused the right to mount
a defense. United States v. Tanner, supra, 279 F.Supp. at
474; United States v. Manetti, supra, 323 F.Supp. at 696.
Notably, prejudice to the defendant has been defined by
Justice Rehnquist to be the "impairment of the ability to
mount a defense." United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal 458
U.S. 858, 869 (1982).
The instant Indictment contains the very form of
generalized charges against which a Bill of Particulars is
designed to protect. Without further particularization,
defendant Brandon will not be able to fully exercise his
Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial.
II.
THE INDICTMENT HEREIN DOES NOT ADEQUATELY APPRISE
THE DEFENDANT OF THE NATURE AND SCOPE
OF THE CHARGES AGAINST HIM.
The charges in the Indictment herein are glaringly void
of requisite information concerning the specific acts
involved. The charges in no way enable the preparation of a
defense. All information requested herein is essential to
remedy the Indictment's deficiencies in allowing defendant
to prepare a defense.
In evaluating any defendant's motion for a Bill of
Particulars, the court is called upon to make a
"particularized decision" which takes into account the
amount of facts stated in the charging document before the
court. United States v. Thevis 474 F.Supp. 117, 123
(N.D.Ga.1979); United States v. Barket 380 F.Supp. 1018,
1021 (W.D.Mo.1974).
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 6 of 9
It is well-established that a defendant should not be
deprived of a Bill of Particulars simply because he requests
information which might be used by the government as
evidence. United States v. Crisona, supra, 271 F.Supp. at
156.
III.
THE SIXTH AMENDMENT MANDATES DISCLOSURE
OF THE FACTUAL INFORMATION SOUGHT HEREIN.
A Bill of Particulars, unlike most criminal discovery
devices, directly implicates the Sixth Amendment's guarantee
of the right to make a vigorous and prepared defense in a
criminal case. See, United States v. Tanner, supra, 279
F.Supp. at 473-74.
When the charging document lacks sufficient
particularity to allow a defendant to prepare a defense, as
here, the defendant's ability to confront adverse witnesses
and to use compulsory process is seriously inhibited.
Obviously, due process requires that an accused receive the
opportunity to defend, including being able to examine
witnesses, offer evidence in defense, and be represented by
a fully prepared trial counsel. See, In re Oliver 333 U.S.
257 (1948). Denial of the right to defend is an error of
constitutional magnitude, requiring proof that the error
involved was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Chapman v.
California 386 U.S. 18, 23-24 (1967).
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 7 of 9
Therefore, any judicial doubt concerning defendant's
request for Bill of Particulars must be resolved in favor of
disclosure, due to the public interest in giving the accused
a right to mount a defense. United States v. Manetti,
supra, 323 F.Supp. at 696. Impairment of the ability to
mount a defense constitutes prejudice. United States v.
Valenzuela- Bernal, supra, 458 U.S. at 869.
CONCLUSION
Any attempt to defend against the charges in the
Indictment without further particularization will result in
manifest prejudice to defendant.
For the reasons stated above, this court is
respectfully requested to grant this motion for a Bill of
Particulars in order to avoid that prejudice and a violation
of defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial.
Dated:
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Norman Vroman
____________________
NORMAN L. VROMAN
In Propria Persona
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 8 of 9
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that a true and correct copy of
the foregoing was hand delivered to the United States
Attorney, at his respective office, on this 16th day of
July, 1991.
/s/ Norman Vroman
____________________
NORMAN L. VROMAN
Motion for Bill of Particulars:
Page 9 of 9
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
U.S.A. v. Vroman