Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. CASE NO.: 4:09cr50-SPM/AK

STEVEN EUGENE PASSMORE,

Defendant.

_____________________________/

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS AND

MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS

This cause comes before the Court for consideration of Defendant’s

Motion to Dismiss Indictment under Rule 12 Fed. R. Crim. P. (doc. 24),

Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. 27), and the responses in

opposition filed by the Government (docs. 33 and 34). 

On a motion to dismiss an indictment under Federal Rule of Criminal

Procedure 12, the Court’s review is limited to the face of the indictment and the

language used to charge the crime. United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257,

1263 (11th Cir. 2006). So long as the indictment is sufficiently specific to inform

the defendant of the charges against him and the charging language sets forth

the essential elements of the crime, the indictment will stand. Id. It is improper
Page 2 of 3

to go beyond the allegations of the indictment and base a dismissal on factual

determinations that must be developed at trial. Id. 

In this case, the indictment is sufficient to charge Defendant with violating

Title 18, Untied States Code, Section 1521, which proscribes retaliation against a

federal judge or federal law enforcement officer by false claim or slander of title. 

The indictment tracks the language of the statute, including the alternative ways

in which the offense can be committed, but only alleges a single offense. United

States v. Seher, 562 F.3d 1344, 1360-1363 (11th Cir. 2009). The Government

clarifies that it will not be proceeding on a conspiracy theory and will prove that

Defendant made the filing at issue. This is allowable. Id. at 1363. Defendant

challenges the indictment on a variety of other grounds. For the reasons stated

in the Government’s response, the Court finds no valid basis to dismiss the

indictment.

In the motion for bill of particulars, Defendant asks for information about

his placement on the terrorist watch list. The Government states in its response

that Defendant’s NCIC “rap sheet”, which indicates that Defendant is on a

terrorist watch list, was provided to Defendant as a routine part of discovery. The

Defendant’s placement on any such terrorist watch list is not relevant to the

charges in this case and no mention of it will be made at trial. 

“The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the

charge against him with sufficient precision to allow him to prepare his defense,

CASE NO.: 4:09cr50-SPM/AK
Page 3 of 3

to minimize surprise at trial and to enable him to plead double jeopardy in the

event of a later prosecution for the same offense.” United States v. Warren, 772

F.2d 827, 837 (11th Cir. 1985). Since the information about the terrorist watch

list has no bearing on this case, no bill of particulars regarding the terrorist watch

list is needed. Accordingly, it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Indictment under Rule 12 Fed. R.

Crim. P. (doc. 24) is denied.

2. Defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars (doc. 27) is denied. 

DONE AND ORDERED this 29th day of December, 2009.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge

CASE NO.: 4:09cr50-SPM/AK