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 

ELIZABETH A. STRANGE 

First Assistant United States Attorney 

ANNA WRIGHT

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

State Bar No.: 029708 

405 West Congress, Suite 4800 

Tucson, Arizona 85701-5040 

Telephone: (520) 620-7300 

E-mail: anna.wright@usdoj.gov 

E-mail: nathaniel.walters@usdoj.gov 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

 Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

Scott Daniel Warren, 

 Defendant.

18-CR-223-TUC-RCC (BPV) 

GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE 

TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS 

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, hereby 

responds to the defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 35) and respectfully 

requests that the Court deny the defendant the relief he seeks for the reasons set forth below. 

I. Legal Summary 

A defendant may file a motion for a bill of particulars within 14 days of arraignment. 

Fed. R. Crim. P 7(f). However, defendant may also move at a later date with the Court’s 

permission. Id. 

A bill of particulars serves to (1) inform the defendant of the nature of the charges 

such that he can prepare an adequate defense, (2) minimize surprise at trial, and (3) protect 

against double jeopardy. United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1483 (9th Cir. 1991) 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 46 Filed 04/02/18 Page 1 of 3
- 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 

(quoting United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979)). A bill of particulars 

is proper only when the indictment “is insufficient to permit preparation of an adequate 

defense.” United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890, 897 (9th Cir. 1985); see also United 

States v. Crow, 824 F.2d 761, 762 (9th Cir. 1987). An indictment is not insufficient simply 

because it does not name alleged co-conspirators. DiCesare, 765 F.2d at 897. It is not the 

function of a bill of particulars to allow for a detailed disclosure of the government’s case. 

United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 790 (9th Cir. 2013); see also DiCesare, 765 F.2d 

at 897; United States v. Cooper, 282 F.2d 527, 532 (9th Cir. 1960). 

II. Discussion 

In this case, the defendant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his 

delay in moving for a bill of particulars. The defendant was arraigned on February 21, 

2018, on the indictment, which included a conspiracy count without naming the coconspirators. Docs. 28-29. In addition, as discussed below, as of February 23, 2018, the 

defendant had all of the information necessary to identify possible co-conspirators. 

Therefore, the government respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendant’s 

Motion for Bill of Particulars as untimely. 

Even if the Court declines to deny the motion as untimely, the government 

respectfully requests that the Court deny the motion because it lacks merit. As an initial 

matter, failure to name a co-conspirator in an indictment is not a sufficient basis for a bill 

of particulars. See DiCesare, 765 F.2d at 897. Nevertheless, in this case, it is clear through 

the disclosure and counsel for the defendant’s own communications that the defendant is 

aware of the identities of several possible co-conspirators. See Ayers, 924 F.2d at 1484; 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 46 Filed 04/02/18 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

United States v. Mitchell, Jr., 744 F.2d 701, 705 (9th Cir. 1984). Specifically, the 

government disclosed the results of the forensic examination of a cell phone belonging to 

Kristian Perez-Villanueva, a material witness, on February 15, 2018. As the forensic 

examination revealed, Perez-Villanueva’s cell phone contained text messages with an 

individual identified as “Ireneo” related to arranging transportation within the United States

on January 14, 2018. Counsel for the defendant indicated in a preliminary witness list 

provided to the government on February 23, 2018, that the defendant may call a witness, 

identified as Irineo Mujica, to “testify about his interactions with Kristian Perez-Villanueva 

and/or Jose Arnaldo Sacaria-Goday[.]” As such, it is clear that the Indictment, taken with 

the disclosure, is sufficient to advise the defendant of the possible co-conspirators. 

III. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, the government respectfully requests that the Court 

deny the defendant’s Motion for Bill of Particulars. 

 Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of April, 2018. 

 ELIZABETH A. STRANGE

First Assistant United States Attorney District of Arizona 

 /s/ Anna R. Wright & Nathaniel J. Walters

 ANNA WRIGHT &

 NATHANIEL J. WALTERS 

 Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

Copy of the foregoing served electronically or by 

other means this 2nd day of April, 2018, to: 

All ECF participants 

Case 4:18-cr-00223-RCC-DTF Document 46 Filed 04/02/18 Page 3 of 3