United States v. Poulin
District Court, D. Maine
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS AND FOR A COPY OF EACH IMAGE UPON WHICH THIS PROSECUTION IS PREDICATED
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., District Judge.
The Court denies the Defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars, because the Indictment complies with Rule 7(c) requirements and the Government has adopted an “open file” stance on the Defendant’s request for an itemization of the images upon which the Government’s prosecution is based.
I. STATEMENT OF FACTS
On March 12, 2008, a federal grand jury indicted Daniel Poulin for exploitation of a minor in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a).…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Hamling v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- United States v. SepulvedaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1993
- United States v. CarllSupreme Court of the United States · 1882
- United States v. HessSupreme Court of the United States · 1888
- United States v. James Earl PaivaCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1989
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- United States v. CameronDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2009
- United States v. CameronDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2009
- United States v. DeLaurentiisDistrict Court, D. Maine · 2009