USA v. Fletcher et al

PEARSON, J.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
) 	CASE NO. 1:25-CR-359-2
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	JUDGE BENITA Y. PEARSON
)
AMONT PHILLIP JOHNSON, 	) 	MEMORANDUM OF
) 	OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant. 	) 	[Resolving ECF No. 44]
The Court considers Defendant Amont Johnson’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars. See
ECF No. 44. Having reviewed the docket, supporting memoranda, and applicable law, the
motion is denied for the reasons herein.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant was indicted in federal court on July 23, 2025 for conspiracy to commit wire
fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1349 and 1343. See ECF No. 1. He moved for a bill of
particulars under Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) on October 28, 2025. See ECF No. 44. The Government
opposed the motion. See ECF No. 49. Defendant replied. See ECF No. 51. Trial commences
December 15, 2025. See ECF No. 45.
II. LAW
A federal criminal indictment must include a “plain, concise, and definite written
statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged” to allow a defendant to
meaningfully prepare for trial. Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). An indictment is sufficiently detailed if
it contains the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the defendant of the same, and
Case: 1:25-cr-00359-BYP Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/17/25 1 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-359-2)
2
allows the defendant to plead acquittal or conviction to bar double jeopardy. See Hamling v.
United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974). When an indictment is deficiently detailed, a district
court “may direct the government to file a bill of particulars” to enlighten the accused. Fed. R.
Crim. P. 7(f). Such a bill is intended to:
(1) Ensure the defendant understands the nature of the charges
against him so that he can adequately prepare for trial.
(2) Avoid or minimize the danger of unfair surprise at trial.
(3) Enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy if later charged
with the same defense when the indictment is vague or indefinite.
See United States v. Martin, 822 F.2d 1089 (6th Cir. 1987) (citing United States v. Birmley, 529
F.2d 103, 108 (6th Cir. 1976); United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369, 1375 (6th Cir. 1993)
(“A bill of particulars is meant to be used as a tool to minimize surprise and assist [the]
defendant in obtaining the information needed to prepare a defense and to preclude a second
prosecution for the same crimes.”). In line with Hamling, the Sixth Circuit test for issuing a bill
of particulars is “whether the indictment sets forth the elements of the offense[s] charged and
sufficiently apprises the defendant of the charges to enable him to prepare for trial.” Martin, 822
F.2d at 1089 (quoting United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126, 134 (6th Cir. 1981); see 418 U.S.
at 117.
III. DISCUSSION
The Government has provided Defendant with sufficient details to understand the nature
of the charge against him, prepare his defenses, and––if necessary––plead double jeopardy. The
criminal indictment is seventeen pages long, outlines the statutory language of 18 U.S.C. §§
1349 and 1343, details the alleged conspiracy, and provides particularized dates and acts of
Defendant’s allegedly criminal conduct. See ECF No. 1. Defendant has also been given
Case: 1:25-cr-00359-BYP Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/17/25 2 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>

(1:25-CR-359-2)
3
substantial details of the same via discovery sufficient for trial preparation.1 See, e.g., United
States v. Musick, 291 Fed. App’x at 725 (6th Cir. 2008) (affirming denial when the defendant
“received access to all of the pertinent information necessary to prepare his defense and avoid
unfair surprise.”). Defendant claims that “[t]he discovery which has been provided . . . does not
specify the act(s) allegedly committed by Defendant Johnson in furtherance of the alleged
conspiracy.” ECF No. 51 at PageID ##: 300. The Court disagrees.2 Both the original
indictment and subsequent disclosures obviate this unsupported need for a bill of particulars.
Martin, 822 F.2d at 1089 (citing United States v. Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979)).
IV. CONCLUSION
Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (see ECF No. 44) is denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
November 17, 2025 	/s/ Benita Y. Pearson
Date 	Benita Y. Pearson
United States District Judge
1 The government has produced over 260,000 documents for Defendant through an
accessible electronic portal. ECF No. 49 at PageID ##: 289–90. Defendant relies on this
“voluminous” production to seek a continuance of the trial date. See ECF No. 52 at PageID #:
303.
2 Defendant claims his counsel “should not be forced to spend an inordinate amount of
time scrutinizing a terabyte of data to learn what acts the government contends support the
charges against Defendant” because doing so would “require defense counsel to search for a
needle in a haystack.” ECF No. 51 at PageID #: 301. The Court requires only that counsel “act
with diligence and promptness” in defending his client. See ABA Standards for Criminal Justice
4–1.9 (4th ed. 2017).
Case: 1:25-cr-00359-BYP Doc #: 54 Filed: 11/17/25 3 of 3. PageID #: <pageID>