United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Richard G. Kopf, Senior United States District Judge
matter is before the court on Defendant Jennie L. Reese's
Motion for Bill of Particulars and Motion to Dismiss
(Filing No. 20). For the reasons discussed below,
the Motion for a Bill of Particulars will be denied, and the
Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part.
was a tenant at a public housing program in Gordon, Nebraska
from February 1, 2010 through May 31, 2012. The housing
program was administered by the Gordon Housing Authority
(GHA), with the amount of rent based on each tenant's
income and adjusted if that income changed. Reese also worked
for the GHA and “was responsible to review, calculate,
and re-certify the tenants' rents . . . annually.”
(Filing No. 22 at CM/ECF p. 3).
count indictment was filed against Defendant on January 19,
2017. The indictment in its entirety states:
Between on or about February 2011 and on or about January
2013, in the District of Nebraska, Defendant, JENNIE L.
REESE, willfully and knowingly did embezzle, steal, purloin,
and convert to her own use funds of the Gordon Housing
Authority that originated with the United States Department
of Housing and Urban Development, a department or agency of
the United States, of a value exceeding $1000. In violation
of Title 18, United States Code, Section 641.
(Filing No. 1).
initially appeared on March 1, 2017, and the parties were
ordered to conduct reciprocal discovery, as set forth in Fed.
R. Crim. P. 16. Defendant has now moved for a Bill of
Particulars and to have the indictment dismissed, alleging
the charges within the indictment are barred by the statute
Motion for Bill of Particulars.
has moved for a Bill of Particulars, asserting the government
should be required to list the specific date on which each
alleged theft or embezzlement of money occurred “in
order to determine whether or not the statute of limitations
has expired with regards to each offense.” (Filing
No. 21 at CM/ECF p. 8).
If a defendant believes that an indictment does not provide
enough information to prepare a defense, then he or she may
move for a bill of particulars. See Fed.R.Crim.P.
7(f). The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform
the defendant of the nature of a charge with
“sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for
trial” and “to avoid or minimize the danger of
surprise at trial.”
U.S. v. Livingstone, 576 F.3d 881 (8th Cir. 2009).
government opposes the motion for bill of particulars,
stating it has already provided extensive discovery and
afforded defendant Reese with adequate notice of the charges
and a full and fair opportunity to prepare a defense. The
government further asserts the discovery materials it
provided to Reese “set forth in detail dates, amounts,
types of Defendant Reese's actions, and also included
spreadsheets and tables that specifically identified the
dollar amount of loss, together with summaries of interviews
of GHA ...