1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Caitlin Persis Deighan, et al. 

Defendants. 

No. MJ-17-0340-TUC-BGM 

ORDER 

 Currently pending before the Court is Defendants Caitlin Persis Deighan, Zoe E. 

Anderson, Logan Thomas Hollarsmith, and Rebecca Katie Grossman-Richeimer’s 

(collectively “Defendants”) Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 47). The Government 

has filed its response, and Defendants have replied. Govt.’s Response to Defs.’ Mot. for 

a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 53); Defs.’ Reply to Response to Mot. for Bill of Particulars 

(Doc. 55). Defendant Caitlin Persis Deighan is charged with one (1) count of operating a 

motor vehicle in a wilderness area, and all Defendants are charged with one (1) count of 

entering a national wildlife refuge without a permit. Information (Doc. 1).

 On March 30, 2018, oral argument was held before Magistrate Judge Macdonald 

regarding the motion. Minute Entry 3/30/2018 (Doc. 57). The Court took the matter 

under advisement, and it is ripe for adjudication. 

 . . . 

 . . . 
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND 

 On July 19, 2017 Federal Wildlife Officer (“FWO”) Jose Valenzuela received 

information of individuals in an area called Charlie Bell Pass/Well of the Cabeza Prieta 

National Wildlife Refuge. Govt.’s Aff. (Doc. 18) at 2.1

 At approximately 7:30 p.m., 

FWO Valenzuela received a call to investigate trespassing in a designated wilderness area 

of Charlie Bell area which is located on the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. Id.

at 2. While en route to the Charlie Bell area, FWO Valenzuela heard radio traffic 

between Border Patrol dispatch and a Border Patrol agent in the area. Id. At the refuge 

exit, a Border Patrol agent was following a white vehicle when FWO Valenzuela met 

them. Id.

 The driver was identified as Caitlin Persis Deighan, and the three passengers were 

identified as Logan Thomas Hollarsmith, Zoe E. Anderson, and Rebecca Katie 

Grossman-Richeimer. Id. at 2–3. FWO Valenzuela’s affidavit is unclear regarding 

whether the Defendants had visitor permits in their possession; however, the indictment 

is clear that Defendants did not have valid permits. Govt.’s Aff. (Doc. 18) at 3; see

Indictment (Doc. 1). Defendant Deighan admitted driving down to the well past the signs 

saying “government use only.” Govt.’s Aff. (Doc. 18) at 3. Defendants stated that they 

had not noticed any signs. Id. During FWO Valenzuela’s recording of Defendants 

identification and vehicle information, the Border Patrol agent interviewed the 

individuals about damage to a United States Border Patrol camera. Id. at 3–4.

II. ANALYSIS

Defendants seek a bill of particulars regarding the charges filed against them. 

Defendants assert that “[g]iven the nature of the co-defendants’ work with No More 

Deaths, and their possibly multiple encounters with law enforcement on the date of the 

alleged violations, it is not clear specifically which conduct the Government alleges to be 

a violation.” Defs.’ Mot. for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 47) at 6. 

 1

 The court relies on the ECF pagination for pinpoint citations. 
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 The purpose of a bill of particulars is to reduce surprise; enable adequate trial 

preparation; and to protect the defendant against being placed in double jeopardy. United 

States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983). In determining whether or not to 

grant a request for a bill of particulars, the Court must consider whether the indictment is 

so vague that a bill of particulars is required. United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 

(9th Cir. 1979). “A defendant is not entitled to know all the evidence the government 

intends to produce but only the theory of the government’s case.” United States v. 

Ryland, 806 F.2d 941, 942 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Geise, 597 F.2d at 1181) (emphasis in 

original). Moreover, “[f]ull discovery . . . obviates the need for a bill of particulars.” 

Geise, 597 F.2d at 1180. 

 In United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780 (9th Cir. 2013), the defendant “moved 

for a bill of particulars, seeking specific information concerning the dates and places that 

he was alleged to have possessed cocaine with intent to distribute, and occasions when he 

was alleged to have distributed cocaine, including identification of any witnesses to such 

transactions. Id. at 788. “The district court denied the motion, stating that the 

prosecution’s theory of the case was clear from the indictment and that full discovery 

would obviate the need for a bill of particulars.” Id. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals 

rejected Mancuso’s claim that the indictment failed to provide him the constitutionally 

required notice. Id. at 789–90. 

 Here, the Government has filed an affidavit outlining the events that resulted in the 

charges brought against Defendants. The prosecution’s theory of the case is clear from 

the indictment and affidavit. Furthermore, the affidavit along with any discovery will 

sufficiently enable Defendants to prepare their defenses for trial. See United States v. 

Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1484 (9th Cir. 1991). A bill of particulars is unnecessary. 

III. CONCLUSION 

Based upon the foregoing, the Court finds Defendants’ Motion for Bill of 

Particulars (Doc. 47) is without merit. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that 
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

Defendants’ Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 47) is DENIED. 

 Dated this 1st day of May, 2018.