Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Vest

July 28, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JAMES V. VEST, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant James Vest has filed a Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 37), pursuant to FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 7(f), requesting the following:

1. With respect to Count II*fn1 of the superceding indictment, please state when, and by whom, the firearm was transferred to defendant.

2. With respect to Count II of the superceding indictment, please state if the transfer applied, per Title 26 § 5812. If so, please state by whom and when.

3. Was the application for transfer approved for transfer by the United States Government? If so, by whom and when was the approval issued.

4. Is the State of Illinois subject to Title 26 § 5812*fn2 or Title 26 § 5841*fn3 ?

5. Was the firearm in question registered to defendant's employer, the State of Illinois, or any subdivision thereof?

Defendant has also filed a supporting memorandum (Doc. 39), which states:

[t]he Court is aware from the suppression hearing that the automatic weapon was registered to the Illinois State Police and possessed by Sgt. Vest in the line of duty. In order to perfect our record for the motion (and our defense), it is necessary that the information sought be provided. We do not think it will require much effort by the prosecution.

The Government has filed a Response to Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 43), asserting that it is unnecessary in this case. Specifically, the Government argues that paragraphs 2 and 4 of Defendant's Motion amount to legal questions and therefore cannot be afforded relief under Rule 7(f) (Id. at 2). Further, the Government feels that Defendant's supporting memorandum fails to give any legal basis to support the Bill of Particulars request (Id. at 3). In response to paragraph 1 of Defendant's Motion, the Government believes that the Bureau's Report regarding Defendant's statement, provided to Defendant by the Government during discovery, was extensively explored during the suppression hearing (Id. at 3). The Government also lists the other documents it provided to Defendant during discovery, implying that much of the information requested by the Bill of Particulars has already been provided to Defendant, thereby obviating the need for this requested discovery (Id. at 4)(many of these are attached to its Response as exhibits).

(e) Proof of registration.--A person possessing a firearm registered as required by this section shall retain proof of registration which shall be made available to the Secretary upon request.

Defendant has also recently filed a Motion to Supplement the Bill of Particulars (Doc. 54), to which the Government has not yet responded, however, the Court believes it can adequately address this Motion as well, without such a Response. Defendant seeks to further supplement his Bill of Particulars with the following three items, but gives no further reason as to why he should be entitled to this disclosure:

1. Please state if it is known to the Government and the grand jury that defendant was an Illinois State ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.