FREDERICK J. MARTONE, District Judge.
The court has before it defendant's motion for a bill of particulars (doc. 22), the government's response (doc. 25), and defendant's reply (doc. 26).
On May 16, 2012, defendant was charged in a five-count indictment with federal programs bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B); two counts of honest services mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1346; Hobbs Act extortion, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951, 2; and false statements, 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2). Defendant now moves for a bill of particulars under Rule 7(f), Fed. R. Crim. P., arguing that the indictment is insufficient to give him adequate notice of the charges against him.
The "essential purpose of an indictment is to give the defendant notice of the charge so that he can defend or plead his case adequately."
Defendant presents two arguments in support of his motion for a bill of particulars. He first argues that the indictment must allege a specific quid pro quo-in other words, a direct connection between a particular benefit received in exchange for a particular official act. We are not persuaded by this argument given that the requisite quid pro quo element for the crimes charged does not require proof of a direct link between a specific official act and a specific benefit.
However, defendant also argues that the indictment is defective because, although "things of value" and "official acts" are enumerated, the specified items do not constitute the complete list of the quid and quo that the government may introduce in order to obtain a conviction.
The government does not address this argument. Therefore, questions remain as to whether the government intends to assert additional instances of quid pro quo exchanges? Is the government obligated to include in an indictment uncharged criminal acts it intends to introduce in order to obtain a conviction? Does the inclusion of the term "including but not limited to" in the indictment require a bill of particulars in order to allow the defendant to prepare for trial, to avoid surprises, or to interpose a plea of double jeopardy should he be prosecuted a second time for the same offenses.
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the government will file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 4 pages, addressing the issue presented by the defendant and the questions posed by the court, on or before July 27, 2012.