United States v. Singh Tarandeep
2:24-cr-00020
| N.D. Ind. | Jan 27, 2025Background
- Defendant Sylwia J. Szot is charged with conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 related to theft of interstate shipments.
- The alleged conspiracy involved leasing a warehouse to divert shipments, then extorting payment or selling the stolen goods.
- The indictment specifically names co-conspirators, involved companies, and the warehouse location.
- The complexity and volume of discovery led the parties to agree the case is complex under the Speedy Trial Act.
- Szot filed multiple discovery-related motions, including requests for a bill of particulars and production of Brady and Giglio materials.
- The government has provided substantial discovery and maintains it has met its constitutional obligations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Indictment and Discovery | Indictment and discovery suffice | Needs more specifics | Indictment and discovery are sufficient |
| Bill of Particulars | Not necessary | Entitled to more details | Motion denied; details already sufficient |
| Discovery of Brady/Giglio Material | Already in compliance | Requests materials | No further action required |
| Failure to Meet Confer Requirement | N/A | Did not confer with government | Motion denied for procedural deficiency |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Canino, 949 F.2d 928 (7th Cir. 1991) (Bill of particulars is unnecessary if indictment and discovery provide sufficient notice.)
- United States v. Vaughn, 722 F.3d 918 (7th Cir. 2013) (Adequate discovery can obviate the need for a bill of particulars.)
- United States v. Fassnacht, 332 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2003) (Extensive pretrial discovery may render a bill of particulars unnecessary.)
- United States v. Glecier, 923 F.2d 496 (7th Cir. 1991) (Volume of government-provided documents can satisfy bill of particulars requirement.)
- United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825 (7th Cir. 1985) (Defendant entitled to know charge, not all evidence.)
- United States v. Kendall, 665 F.2d 126 (7th Cir. 1981) (Indictment need not detail all facts or evidence.)
- United States v. Smith, 230 F.3d 300 (7th Cir. 2000) (No need for detailed factual proof in indictment.)
- United States v. Blanchard, 542 F.3d 1133 (7th Cir. 2008) (Focus on sufficient notice to prepare defense.)
- United States v. Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964 (7th Cir. 2003) (Sufficiency of notice is the key inquiry.)