|
|
|
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States, based upon its present belief and the information now in its possession, files this Bill of Particulars in Response to Defendants Atlas Iron Processors, Inc., Anthony Giordano, Sr., Anthony J. Giordano, Jr., and David Giordano's Joint Motion for a Bill of Particulars ("Defendants' Motion"). This Bill of Particulars also responds to the motion of Defendant Randolph J. Weil seeking a bill of particulars and adopting his co-defendants' request. The United States has filed a Memorandum in support of this Bill of Particulars. As detailed in this Memorandum, the defendants already have been provided with extensive discovery in this case. SeeMemorandum In Support Of United States' Response To Defendants Atlas Iron Processors, Inc., Anthony J. Giordano, Sr., Anthony J. Giordano, Jr., And David Giordano's Joint Motion For A Bill Of Particulars; And In Response To Motion Of Defendant Weil To Adopt Motion Of Codefendants For A Bill Of Particulars ("Memorandum Of The United States"), pp. 2-3. As fully set forth in its attached Memorandum, a bill of particulars is not a device for discovering either the evidentiary details or legal theories of the government's case. Consequently, the United States has not followed the definitions and instructions in the "Introduction" section of Defendants' Motion. As provided by Rule 7(f), the United States reserves its right to amend this Bill at any time. The United States responds as follows to the specifications of the defendants' motion. SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE
The defendants and co-conspirators alleged to have participated in the charged
conspiracy, and their last known business or home address, are as follows:
SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE
The Indictment charges that one of the terms of the conspiracy was to allocate suppliers
of scrap metal. See Indictment, ¶¶ 2 and 3. Those suppliers, whom the
United States has identified at the present time, are as follows:
SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment do not allege that any supplier of scrap metal was affected by conspiracy. A violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when the agreement is made; an overt act in furtherance of the agreement need not be alleged or proved, nor is it required to allege or prove any effect. The defendants are sufficiently advised of the charge against them by the Indictment, the extensive discovery disclosed and made available to the defendants, and this Bill of Particulars. To provide further explanation of the charge in the Indictment, the United States provides the following information: The defendants are charged with having engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and restrain competition in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. This combination and conspiracy consisted of a continuing agreement, understanding and concert of action among the defendants and co-conspirators. During the course of the conspiracy, the defendants and co-conspirators discussed various suppliers and geographic locations, including the following:
With respect to specific scrap suppliers, the defendants and co-conspirators agreed upon maximum pricing to these suppliers. With respect to suppliers in specific geographic areas, the defendants and co-conspirators agreed upon maximum pricing to suppliers in these geographic areas. The defendants and co-conspirators also agreed upon over-the-scale prices for particular grades of scrap, including, sheet metal, appliances or white goods, unprepared and prepared scrap, whole cars, and logs. SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the indictment, identify:
RESPONSE
This Specification calls for the details of the government's evidence and its legal theories,
and, therefore, is beyond the scope of a Bill of Particulars. By way of further explanation,
however, the United States provides the following information about five meetings which were
attended by various defendants and co-conspirators, and in connection with which occurred most
of the collusive communications in furtherance of the charged conspiracy:
SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE The Indictment alleges that, beginning at least as early as October 24, 1992, and continuing until at least until November 23, 1992, the exact dates being unknown to the grand jury, the defendants and co-conspirators engaged in a combination and conspiracy to suppress and restrain competition by fixing the price of scrap metal, and allocating suppliers of scrap metal, in southern Florida. See Indictment, ¶ 2. By way of further explanation, the United States believes that the conspiracy alleged in the Indictment ended sometime in January, 1993. Further information would constitute the details of the evidence and the legal theories of the prosecution and would, therefore, go beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE Yes. SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE Yes. SPECIFICATION A) With respect to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE Yes. SPECIFICATION B) With respect to paragraph 4 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specifications A(1), A(2), A(3), and A(4). Further information requested in this Specification constitutes the details of the evidence and the government's's legal theories and, therefore, goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION B) With respect to paragraph 4 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE The principal offense charged in the Indictment occurred in the Southern District of Florida. The locations of meetings attended by various defendants and co-conspirators are set forth in the Response of the United States to Specification A(4). The location of the offices of defendants Atlas Iron Processors, Inc., and Sunshine Metal Processing, Inc., are set forth in the Response of the United States to Specification A(1). Further information requested in this Specification constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION B) With respect to paragraph 4 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE A list of defendants and co-conspirators is set forth in Response of the United States to Specification A(1). A list of meetings attended by various defendants and co-conspirators is set forth in Response of the United States to Specification A(4). Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION B) With respect to paragraph 4 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specification B(3). Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION C) With respect to paragraph 11 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specification B(3). Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION C) With respect to paragraph 11 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specifications A(3), A(4) and B(1) of the Bill of Particulars. Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and the government's legal theories and, therefore, goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. Moreover, the defendants already have been provided with extensive discovery in this case, providing significant details relating to overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. SeeMemorandum Of The United States, pp. 2-3. SPECIFICATION C) With respect to paragraph 11 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specification A(1) and (4) of the Bill of Particulars. Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION C) With respect to paragraph 11 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specification A(1) and (4) of the Bill of Particulars. Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. Moreover, the defendants already have been provided with extensive discovery in this case, providing significant details relating to overt acts committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. See Memorandum Of The United States, pp. 2-3. SPECIFICATION C) With respect to paragraph 11 of the Indictment, identify:
RESPONSE See the Response of the United States to Specification A(1) and (5) of the Bill of Particulars. Further information constitutes the details of the evidence and gets into the government's legal theories and, therefore, goes beyond the proper scope and function of a Bill of Particulars. As discussed fully in the attached Memorandum, a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act is complete when an agreement is made; no overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy need be alleged nor proved. The defendants are sufficiently advised as to the charge against them by the Indictment and this Bill of Particulars. SPECIFICATION D) Identify each prior or subsequent act of any defendant which the government will seek to introduce at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). RESPONSE
The identification of other acts evidence which the United States intends to introduce at
trial is governed by Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The identification
of 404(b) acts is outside the proper function and scope of a Bill of Particulars. The United States
has disclosed to the defendants the general nature of the other acts evidence it presently intends
to introduce against the defendants. This information was disclosed to the defendants in a letter
dated January 22, 1998.
|