United States v. HAGAN, 683 F.Supp.3d 72

On January 5, 2023 a federal grand jury indicted Christopher Hagan on Count One (conspiracy to transport stolen goods in interstate commerce, 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 2314) and additional money‑laundering counts; the alleged scheme ran from October 2017 to September 2021.
The indictment alleges Hagan conspired with a known co‑conspirator (identified as J.C.) to receive and sell stolen ATPIAL devices and intensifier tubes, sold in interstate commerce, and to distribute proceeds; it includes a spreadsheet of 23 overt acts with dates and associated values.
Hagan moved for a bill of particulars (filed May 13, 2023), seeking an itemized list of each allegedly stolen item, the date each was stolen, and the value of each item so he can prepare defenses (including expert valuation testimony) and avoid surprise or double jeopardy.
The Government opposed (filed June 15, 2023), arguing the indictment and provided discovery give sufficient detail and that a bill of particulars cannot be used to force disclosure of evidentiary theory.
The court denied (dismissed without prejudice) Hagan’s motion on July 21, 2023, holding the indictment satisfies Rule 7(c) by specifying statutory elements, a temporal framework, certain identified items, and a list of overt acts with dates and values; discovery obligations remain intact and the denial is without prejudice to raising future discovery or double jeopardy issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a bill of particulars must itemize each allegedly stolen item, date, and its value	Hagan: needs itemized list and values to prepare defense and rebut valuations	Gov: indictment + discovery (including 23 overt acts spreadsheet) provide adequate specificity	Denied — indictment and spreadsheet sufficiently inform defendant; itemized particulars not required
Whether lack of itemization prejudices ability to plead double jeopardy or avoid future reprosecution	Hagan: without specifics he may face surprise acquittal on some items and later reprosecution	Gov: charging document provides temporal framework; double jeopardy questions depend on statutory elements and may use broader record	Denied — court found current indictment adequate for notice; defendant may raise double jeopardy later with other evidence
Whether the defense is entitled via bill of particulars to evidentiary details (how government will prove value or knowledge)	Hagan: needs disclosure of proof to prepare expert rebuttal and challenge knowledge/valuation	Gov: bill of particulars is not a vehicle to compel evidentiary theory or proofs; standard discovery rules govern disclosure	Denied — bill cannot be used to extract evidentiary theory; discovery obligations under Rules and caselaw remain available

Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87 (1974) (an indictment tracking statutory language can be sufficient if it sets out all elements)
United States v. Resendiz‑Ponce, 549 U.S. 102 (2007) (parroting statute often satisfies indictment sufficiency)
United States v. Sepulveda, 15 F.3d 1161 (1st Cir. 1993) (bill of particulars is seldom used; indictment must fairly apprise defendant and protect against double jeopardy)
United States v. Savarese, 686 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2012) (indictment must specify elements and afford fair notice)
United States v. Arboleda, 929 F.2d 858 (1st Cir. 1991) (defendant must show actual prejudice from lack of particularity)
Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1939) (test for double jeopardy focuses on whether each statutory provision requires proof of a fact the other does not)
United States v. Cameron, 662 F. Supp. 2d 177 (D. Me. 2009) (specific item‑level identification in an indictment may not be required when elements and temporal framework are provided)