United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois, E.D
January 14, 1963
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JOHN P. SPOMAR, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Robson, District Judge.
This is an indictment in three counts alleging that the
defendant, John P. Spomar, attempted to evade and defeat a large
portion of the income tax due and owing by him and his wife for
the years 1958, 1959 and 1960, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7201.
Count I alleges that the defendant filed a joint return for the
year 1958 in which he stated that the income of himself and his
wife was $10,402.74 and that the amount of tax due thereon was
$2,445.71, whereas he knew that the taxable income for the year
was $40,967.74, upon which there was a tax due of $15,202.93.
Count II alleges that he filed a joint return in which he
stated their income for 1959 was in the sum of $6,893.67 and that
the amount of tax due thereon was $1,616.60, whereas he knew that
their taxable income was $44,147.12 upon which there was a tax
due of $17,026.80.
Count III alleges that for the year 1960 the defendant filed a
joint return in which he stated their income was $10,443.57 and
that the tax due thereon was $2,531.33, whereas he knew that the
taxable income for that year was the sum of $51,446.65, upon
which there was due a tax of $21,369.52.
Defendant has moved for a bill of particulars. An examination
of the motion reveals that it seeks to inquire into the
Government's evidence and the theory upon which it will proceed.
The indictment as summarized above fulfills the requirement of
Rule 7(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which
states that the indictment "shall be a plain, concise aud
definite written statement of the essential facts constituting
the offense charged."
The defendant seeks more particularity as to the following
1. Which entries on the return the Government intends to prove
2. Which entries on the return the Government contends are
3. Whether the gross income for the years in issue was
4. The nature of any alleged unreported income, the source of
it, and the dates paid to the defendant and his wife.
5. Whether the Government will offer proof at the trial of the
falsity of any deductions claimed.
6. Which deductions are alleged to be false and the correct
amount of such deductions.
7. The manner in which the Government arrived at the figures
for the alleged income and the taxes due thereon.
8. Whether the Government will offer at the trial proof of any
income in excess of the amount stated in the indictment.
9. The nature of any income in excess of the amounts stated in
the indictment, the persons from whom received and the amount of
In United States v. Doyle, 234 F.2d 788 at page 794 (7th Cir.,
1956), which was a prosecution under the 1939 code section from
which Section 7201 was derived, the Court stated:
"* * * Defendant complains that his motion for a bill
of particulars prior to trial was improperly denied.
Ordinarily, of course, it is safe practice for the
court, in the exercise of its discretion, to permit a
demand for a bill of particulars. However, a proper
bill of particulars does not require inclusion of a
statement of the theory of law upon which the
Government expects to proceed [citing cases] but is
to be confined to facts relied upon, and supplied
only where there is no opportunity afforded for the
defendant to prepare to meet the charges of the
indictment without further information as to such
particulars. The allowance or denial of the motion is
largely a matter of discretion and denial will not be
treated as prejudicial error or abuse of discretion
where there is no proof of prejudice."
Further, it seems that the information that defendant is
seeking may be determined
from an inspection of his own records.
"* * * The general rule is that particulars such as
these will not be furnished when the one seeking them
is in possession of the means of ascertaining them."
United States v. Skidmore, 123 F.2d 604, 607 (7th
The Court concludes that inasmuch as the indictment meets the
requirements of advising the defendant of the charge he has to
meet and that defendant has not shown sufficient cause to require
the Government to reveal the evidence of its case, the motion
must be and is denied.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.