{
  "document_metadata": {
    "page_number": "204",
    "document_number": "204",
    "date": "04/16/21",
    "document_type": "court document",
    "has_handwriting": false,
    "has_stamps": false
  },
  "full_text": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 204 of 239 evidentiary details of its case\" (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose \"the manner in which it will attempt to prove the charges, the precise manner in which the defendant committed the crime charged, or a preview of the Government's evidence or legal theories.\" Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569; see also Torres, 901 F.2d at 234 (\"Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.\" (quoting Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45, 49 (8th Cir. 1968))). The \"wheres, whens and with whoms\" are \"beyond the scope of a bill of particulars.\" Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (\"A bill of particulars is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the government to disclose evidence or witnesses to be offered prior to trial.\" (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561, 580 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (\"A bill of particulars is not designed to: obtain the government's evidence; restrict the government's evidence prior to trial; assist the defendant's investigation; obtain the precise way in which the government intends to prove its case; interpret its evidence for the defendant, or disclose its legal theory.\") United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190, 1197 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (\"This instrument should not function to disclose evidence, witnesses, and legal theories to be offered by the Government at trial or as a general investigative tool for the defense.\") There are good reasons why bills of particulars are warranted only where the allegations in the indictment, as supplemented by discovery and other disclosures, are so general as to render it impossible to prepare a defense. Because \"a bill of particulars confines the Government's proof 177 DOJ-OGR-00003138",
  "text_blocks": [
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 204 Filed 04/16/21 Page 204 of 239",
      "position": "header"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "evidentiary details of its case\" (quoting United States v. Biaggi, 675 F. Supp. 790, 810 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)). A bill of particulars should not be misused to compel the Government to disclose \"the manner in which it will attempt to prove the charges, the precise manner in which the defendant committed the crime charged, or a preview of the Government's evidence or legal theories.\" Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569; see also Torres, 901 F.2d at 234 (\"Acquisition of evidentiary detail is not the function of the bill of particulars.\" (quoting Hemphill v. United States, 392 F.2d 45, 49 (8th Cir. 1968))). The \"wheres, whens and with whoms\" are \"beyond the scope of a bill of particulars.\" Mitlof, 165 F. Supp. 2d at 569 (citing Torres, 901 F.2d at 233-34; Jimenez, 824 F. Supp. 351, 363 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)); see also, e.g., United States v. D'Amico, 734 F. Supp. 2d 321, 335 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (\"A bill of particulars is not a general investigative tool, a discovery device or a means to compel the government to disclose evidence or witnesses to be offered prior to trial.\" (quoting United States v. Gibson, 175 F. Supp. 2d 532, 537 (S.D.N.Y. 2001))); United States v. Bellomo, 263 F. Supp. 2d 561, 580 (E.D.N.Y. 2003) (\"A bill of particulars is not designed to: obtain the government's evidence; restrict the government's evidence prior to trial; assist the defendant's investigation; obtain the precise way in which the government intends to prove its case; interpret its evidence for the defendant, or disclose its legal theory.\") United States v. Henry, 861 F. Supp. 1190, 1197 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (\"This instrument should not function to disclose evidence, witnesses, and legal theories to be offered by the Government at trial or as a general investigative tool for the defense.\") There are good reasons why bills of particulars are warranted only where the allegations in the indictment, as supplemented by discovery and other disclosures, are so general as to render it impossible to prepare a defense. Because \"a bill of particulars confines the Government's proof",
      "position": "main content"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "177",
      "position": "footer"
    },
    {
      "type": "printed",
      "content": "DOJ-OGR-00003138",
      "position": "footer"
    }
  ],
  "entities": {
    "people": [
      "Biaggi",
      "Hemphill",
      "Torres",
      "Jimenez",
      "D'Amico",
      "Gibson",
      "Bellomo",
      "Henry"
    ],
    "organizations": [
      "United States"
    ],
    "locations": [
      "S.D.N.Y.",
      "E.D.N.Y."
    ],
    "dates": [
      "04/16/21",
      "1987",
      "1968",
      "1993",
      "2001",
      "2003",
      "1994",
      "2010"
    ],
    "reference_numbers": [
      "1:20-cr-00330-PAE",
      "Document 204",
      "DOJ-OGR-00003138"
    ]
  },
  "additional_notes": "The document appears to be a court filing related to a criminal case. The text is mostly printed, with no visible handwriting or stamps. The document is well-formatted and legible."
}