Opinion ID: 206048
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Motion to Dismiss the Indictment and Bill of Particulars

Text: Schmitz filed a motion for a bill of particulars, seeking more specific information regarding the charged scheme to defraud. She then filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that all counts were insufficiently specific. As to the mail-fraud counts, she argued that they did not include a statement of facts and circumstances so as to reasonably inform her of the scheme to defraud. As to the federal-funds counts, she argued that the allegations of fraud in those counts were insufficient because they too did not include a statement of facts, and did not incorporate any of the allegations of fraud in the mail-fraud counts. Schmitz also moved to dismiss the federal-funds counts based on the bona fide salary exception in § 666(c). The magistrate judge recommended denial of Schmitz's motion to dismiss the indictment, finding that the indictment sufficiently charged both mail fraud and theft concerning a program receiving federal funds. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's recommendation. With respect to Schmitz's motion for a bill of particulars, the magistrate judge required the Government to explain upon what basis it has concluded that Ms. Schmitz obtained her position through illegitimate means and the relationship between that claim and the mail fraud counts. (Dkt. 72 at 5.) In its bill of particulars, the Government explained that Schmitz utilized her status as a legislator to request and receive preferential treatment in obtaining a position with the CITY Program. (Dkt. 75 at 1.) The Government further explained that Schmitzwith the assistance of the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives, the Chancellor of the Department of Postsecondary Education, and an influential lobbyistobtained a position that did not exist before and for which no other applicants were considered. The Government finally explained that the illegitimate means Schmitz employed to obtain her position were related to the mail-fraud charges because they illuminate[d] [her] fraudulent intent, for her unusual action[s] serve[d] to demonstrate that she never intended to actually perform any work in her role as a CITY Program employee. ( Id. at 2-3.)