USA v. Roberson

1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Terrell Vonshay Roberson,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cr-372 (MJD/DJF)
ORDER AND
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Terrell Vonshay Roberson’s Motion for a Bill
of Particulars (ECF No. 25) and Motion to Suppress Statements (ECF No. 36) (“Motions”). The
Court heard the parties’ oral arguments on the Motions on April 23, 2026 (“Motions Hearing”).
(ECF No. 48.) Based on the parties’ written submissions and oral arguments, and on the entire
file, the Court denies Mr. Roberson’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 25) and
recommends Mr. Roberson’s Motion to Suppress Statements (ECF No. 36) be denied as moot.
I. BACKGROUND
According to the Government, the Minneapolis Police Department (“MPD”) received
information in early March of 2025 from a confidential reliable informant (“CRI”) regarding a
man known as “Get Right” who had powdered fentanyl on his person. (ECF No. 39 at 1.) MPD
identified “Get Right” as Terrell Vonshay Roberson, which the CRI confirmed. (Id.) The CRI
later reported that Mr. Roberson sold and stored fentanyl at 4019 Dupont Avenue North, Unit #2,
and was in possession of fentanyl while driving a black Dodge Ram truck. (Id. at 2.) In late March
of 2025, the CRI completed a controlled purchase of fentanyl from Mr. Roberson, arranged by
MPD. (Id.) Based on the CRI’s information, the controlled purchase, and surveillance of Mr.
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 1 of 7

2
Roberson, MPD obtained search warrants for Mr. Roberson, his Dodge Ram truck (MN license
plate 03659128), and 4019 Dupont Avenue North, Unit #2. (Id. at 2-3.)
MPD officers executed the warrants on March 27, 2025. They stopped, arrested and
searched Mr. Roberson while he was driving the Dodge Ram truck and searched 4019 Dupont
Avenue North, Unit #2. (Id. at 3.) Inside 4019 Dupont Avenue North, Unit #2, officers found
keys to a GMC Yukon XL (“Yukon”) parked in the rear driveway. (Id.) The officers searched the
vehicle, finding fentanyl, drug dealing paraphernalia, and firearms. (Id.)
II. INDICTMENT
The Indictment charges Mr. Roberson with three counts, each alleging offenses occurring
“[o]n or about March 27, 2025, in the State and District of Minnesota.” (ECF No. 1 at 1-3.) Count
1 charges Mr. Roberson with Possession with Intent to Distribute Fentanyl in violation of 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(B). (Id. at 1.) It alleges that he “did unlawfully, knowingly,
and intentionally possess with intent to distribute 40 grams or more of a mixture or substance
containing a detectable amount of [fentanyl], a control substance.” (Id.)
Count 2 charges Mr. Roberson with Possession of a Firearm in Furtherance of a Drug
Trafficking Crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). It alleges that he “did knowingly
possess [three] firearms” “in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime for which he may be
prosecuted in a court of the United States, that is, possession with intent to distribute fentanyl as
alleged in Count 1.” (Id. at 2.) Count 2 further identifies the three firearms by specific make,
model, caliber and serial number. (Id.)
Count 3 charges Mr. Roberson with Felon in Possession of Firearms in violation of 18
U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(8). (Id. at 3.) It alleges that, “having been previously convicted
of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, namely,” “Conspiracy to
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 2 of 7

3
Distribute Cocaine Base” in the “U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota” on or about “April 11,
2017,” and “knowing he had been convicted of at least one crime punishable by imprisonment for
a term exceeding one year, did knowingly possess, in and affecting interstate and foreign
commerce, [the three firearms identified in Count 2].” (Id.)
III. MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS
Mr. Roberson’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 25) seeks an order compelling
the Government to file a Bill of Particulars specifying the nature of the charges in Counts 1, 2 and
3 of the Indictment. Mr. Roberson argues that the Indictment does not adequately inform him of
the essential facts necessary to prepare his defense, avoid surprise at trial and protect against double
jeopardy. (ECF No. 25 at 1.)
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c) states that an indictment “must be a plain, concise,
and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged[.]” “The test
of the sufficiency of an indictment is not whether it could not have been made more definite and
certain, but whether it contains the elements of the offense charged, and sufficiently apprises the
defendant of what he must be prepared to meet, and in case any other proceedings are taken against
him for a similar offense, whether the record shows with accuracy to what extent he may plead a
former acquittal or conviction.” United States v. Tebeau, 713 F.3d 955, 962 (8th Cir. 2013)
(internal quotation marks omitted) (citing United States v. Debrow, 346 U.S. 374, 376 (1953)).
“An indictment is normally sufficient if its language tracks the statutory language.” United States
v. Sewell, 513 F.3d 820, 821 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117
(1974)).
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure Rule 7(f) provides that “[t]he court may direct the
government to file a bill of particulars.” “The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 3 of 7

4
defendant of the nature of a charge with ‘sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial’ and
‘to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at trial.’” United States v. Livingstone, 576 F.3d 881,
883 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Hernandez, 299 F.3d 984, 989–90 (8th Cir.2002),
cert. denied, 537 U.S. 1134 (2003)). A district court may order a bill of particulars if “the
particulars set out in the indictment fail sufficiently to apprise the defendant of the charges to
enable him to prepare a defense.” United States v. Garrett, 797 F.2d 656, 665 (8th Cir.1986).
However, “[a] bill of particulars is not a discovery device to be used to require the government to
provide a detailed disclosure of the evidence that it will present at trial.” United States v.
Lundstrom, 880 F.3d 423, 439 (8th Cir. 2018).
Mr. Roberson requests a number of details in his proposed Bill of Particulars for each
charge, including: “the exact location(s) where the controlled substance was allegedly found”;
“whether the Government alleges the firearms were loaded, operable, or accessible”; and “the
specific location where each firearm was found.” (ECF No. 25 at 4.) After Mr. Roberson filed his
Motion for a Bill of Particulars on December 12, 2025 (ECF No. 25), the Government provided
the vast majority, if not all, of these requested details in its Response to his pretrial motions filed
March 12, 2026 (ECF No. 39). See United States v. Brandstrom, No. 24-cr-234 (JWB/DLM),
2026 WL 74109, at *7 (D. Minn. Jan. 9, 2026), report and recommendation adopted, 2026 WL
632478 (D. Minn. Mar. 6, 2026) (finding Government’s discovery productions provided details
that otherwise may have been required in a Bill of Particulars).
At the Motions Hearing, Mr. Roberson’s counsel acknowledged the Government has
provided police reports, body-worn camera footage and other discovery that provides an
understanding of the Government’s case. However, he continues to seek an articulation of the
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 4 of 7

5
Government’s position regarding how Mr. Roberson possessed the controlled substance and
firearms found in the Yukon.
The Government has objected to producing a bill of particulars and responds that the police
reports, search warrants, body-worn camera footage, photographs, surveillance videos, jail calls,
and DNA evidence it has disclosed tie Mr. Roberson to 4019 Dupont Avenue North, the Yukon,
the controlled substance, and the firearms. The Government stated in its Response to the motion
that Mr. Roberson was recorded in a jail call expressing concern about whether a third party “had
removed the guns and drugs from the Yukon as he had instructed.” (ECF No. 39 at 6.) And during
the Motions Hearing, Government counsel asserted that it has disclosed DNA lab reports showing
Mr. Roberson’s major male DNA profile was developed on the three firearms seized from the
Yukon.
Upon reviewing the Indictment, the Court finds that it tracks the elements of the offenses
charged and sufficiently notifies him of what he is alleged to have done to mount a defense and
avoid double jeopardy. Mr. Roberson is not entitled to a detailed recitation of how the Government
plans to present its case at trial. See United States v. Fineday, No. 23-cr-224 (PJS/LIB), 2023 WL
9552042, at *9 (D. Minn. Dec. 19, 2023), report and recommendation adopted, 2024 WL 209081
(D. Minn. Jan. 19, 2024) (holding the that function of a bill of particulars is not to provide a
“description of how the Government intends to prove its theory of the case.”). Moreover, the
Government’s disclosures in discovery, briefing in response to the motion, and arguments during
the Motions Hearing provided Mr. Roberson with sufficient additional details to inform his defense
and minimize the risk of surprise at trial. See United States v. Milk, 66 F.4th 1121, 1133 (8th Cir.
2023). Mr. Roberson’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (ECF No. 25) is denied for these reasons.
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 5 of 7

6
IV. MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS
Mr. Roberson’s Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 36) seeks an order suppressing statements
that Mr. Roberson made to law enforcement during his detention on March 27, 2025 while law
enforcement executed search warrants on Mr. Roberson, his Dodge Ram truck, and 4019 Dupont
Avenue North, Unit #2. Mr. Roberson alleges that officers arrested him, placed him in the back
of a squad car, and questioned him without advising him of his Miranda rights. See Miranda v.
Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
At the Motions Hearing, the Government represented that it did not plan to use the
statements at issue during trial and would self-suppress. On this basis, Mr. Roberson’s counsel
agreed that the Motion to Suppress is now moot. Accordingly, the Court recommends that Mr.
Roberson’s Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 36) be denied as moot.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Terrell Vonshay Roberson’s Motion for a Bill of
Particulars (ECF No. 25) is DENIED.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing, and on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
HEREBY RECOMMENDED that Defendant Terrell Vonshay Roberson’s Motion to Suppress
(ECF No. 36) be DENIED as moot.
Dated: April 30, 2026 s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 6 of 7

7
NOTICE
Order
Filing Objections: The above Order is not appealable to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals until
the conclusion of this matter.
Under Local Rule 72.2(a)(1), “a party may file and serve written objections to the order within 14
days after being served a copy” of the order. A party may respond to those objections within 14
days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(a)(2). All objections and responses
must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).
Report & Recommendation
Filing Objections: The above Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the
District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), “a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate
judge’s proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy” of the
Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being
served a copy of the objections. See Local Rule 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must
comply with the word or line limits set forth in Local Rule 72.2(c).
CASE 0:25-cr-00372-MJD-DJF Doc. 49 Filed 04/30/26 Page 7 of 7