USA v. Davis

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WO
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Charles Lewis Davis,
Defendant.
No. CR-26-00412-001-PHX-KML
ORDER
Criminal defendant Charles Lewis Davis is charged with two counts of making
fraudulent and false statements in his 2020 and 2021 tax returns. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The
indictment explains Davis owns a social media entity, Forever Investments LLC, that posts
videos to various social media sites. (Doc. 1 at 1.) Despite earning substantial income from
Forever Investments LLC—$807,142 in 2020 and $390,566 in 2021—the indictment
alleges Davis failed to include that income on his tax returns, resulting in a total
underpayment of $433,152 over the two tax years. (Doc. 1 at 2.) The indictment specifies
on which lines of the tax returns Davis failed to report gross income and alleges he stored
the income in his personal and business bank, brokerage, and cryptocurrency accounts.
(Doc. 1 at 2.) Each count also alleges Davis filed his false returns under penalty of perjury
and did so willfully, having told his tax preparer that “the records he provided were
complete” while knowing they were not. (Doc. 1 at 1-3.) Notwithstanding these details,
Davis now moves for a bill of particulars. (Doc. 14.) His motion is denied.
Rule 7 requires an indictment to be “a plain, concise, and definite written statement
Case 2:26-cr-00412-KML Document 18 Filed 06/24/26 Page 1 of 3

- 2 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). This
statement will pass constitutional muster when it (1) contains the elements of the offense
such that a defendant knows the charge against which he must defend, and (2) provides
notice specific enough to enable him to plead an acquittal or conviction so as to bar future
prosecutions for the same offense. United States v. Resendiz-Ponce, 549 U.S. 102, 108
(2007). A bill of particulars can further the second function where a defendant argues the
indictment falls short, and also prevent surprises at trial. United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d
1170, 1181 (9th Cir. 1979). But a motion for a bill of particulars may be denied where the
defendant is merely asking for “all the evidence” against him or where the government
provides full discovery. Id. at 1180-81 (simplified).
The indictment in this case provides Davis with significantly more information than
the constitutional floor requires. In certain types of cases, merely including the language
of the statute provides a defendant with enough notice of the charges, if coupled with
specific information (like the dates of the alleged offense) so as to bar re-prosecution. See
United States v. Mancuso, 718 F.3d 780, 790 (9th Cir. 2013). Here, the indictment included
not only the elements of the crime and statutory citations, but precise details alleging how
Davis earned the unreported income, its amount, where on the tax returns he should have
reported it, where he kept it instead of reporting it, the amount of the resulting
underpayment, and why the government believes his conduct was willful. “Common sense
dictates” that these details of his specific conduct adequately informed Davis of the charge.
United States v. Kaplan, 836 F.3d 1199, 1216 (9th Cir. 2016). And in the context of a
prosecution for failure to file tax returns, the Ninth Circuit has explicitly held an indictment
telling the defendant the elements of the crime and the amount of taxable income he earned
provides sufficient notice. United States v. Vroman, 975 F.2d 669, 671 (9th Cir. 1992). The
indictment here goes far beyond that level of detail.
Davis’s motion argues a bill of particulars is warranted because the indictment does
not specifically enough describe the facts making his conduct willful and does not identify
the accounting method that led to the figures it included. (Doc. 14 at 3.) Having informed
Case 2:26-cr-00412-KML Document 18 Filed 06/24/26 Page 2 of 3

- 3 -
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Davis of the offense charged and pleaded enough facts for him to avoid re-prosecution, the
indictment was not required to include these minute details. See Mancuso, 718 F.3d at 790
(a defendant is “not entitled at the time of his indictment to know all of the evidence the
government would use to prove the charges against him”). He also argues the large volume
of discovery provided to him—3,196 documents, by the government’s count (Doc. 17 at
2)—cuts in favor of requiring a bill of particulars. (Doc. 14 at 5.) But full discovery
obviates, rather than necessitates, a bill of particulars. United States v. Grace, 401 F. Supp.
2d 1103, 1119 (D. Mont. 2005); Giese, 597 F.2d at 1180. Many courts have denied bills of
particulars in similar circumstances. See United States v. Nguyen, No. 15-CR-00203-BLF-
1, 2015 WL 6747851, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 5, 2015) (collecting cases).
The indictment in this case, especially when accompanied by full discovery, tells
Davis enough about the charges against him to prepare for trial, avoid surprises, and plead
double jeopardy in the event of a new prosecution. Accordingly, his Motion for a Bill of
Particulars (Doc. 14) is DENIED.
Dated this 24th day of June, 2026.
Case 2:26-cr-00412-KML Document 18 Filed 06/24/26 Page 3 of 3