## Facts

- Federal prosecutors charged Gary Feola and eighteen co-defendants with operating a cocaine and marijuana trafficking ring during 1985, centered in Westchester County and Manhattan.
- A first superseding indictment alleged, among other counts:
  - A cocaine-distribution conspiracy involving nineteen defendants, charged under 21 U.S.C. § 846 and spanning January 1 to November 26, 1985.
  - A marijuana distribution/possession-with-intent conspiracy involving a smaller group of defendants, also under § 846 during the same period.
  - Additional substantive narcotics and firearms counts against certain defendants.
- Before trial, defendants filed numerous motions focused on discovery and case-detail disclosures, including requests that ranged from highly specific items to a demand for the government’s entire investigative file.
- Examples of requested material included: information about promises of preferential treatment to witnesses; impeachment information; recordings and agents’ notes of interviews and communications; names and addresses of government witnesses; defendants’ statements and criminal records; results of scientific tests; and polygraph examination results.
- Defendants also sought bills of particulars to obtain further detail about the government’s allegations and proof.
- The district court noted that defendant Luz Arteago had previously been severed by separate order and that the memorandum did not apply to her.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendants were entitled, through Rule 16 and related doctrines, to broad pretrial discovery including the government’s entire investigative file and other open-ended categories of materials.
2. Whether and when the government had to disclose impeachment and benefit-related information about its witnesses under Brady and Giglio, and whether the court should order production earlier than the schedule set by the Jencks Act.
3. Whether the defendants were entitled to witness names and addresses and other trial-detail disclosures as a matter of right in this non-capital prosecution.
4. Whether the indictment, together with discovery provided or promised by the government, was sufficiently detailed to permit preparation of the defense, or whether the court should order bills of particulars.
5. Whether specific requested items—such as agents’ interview notes and recordings, test results, and polygraph-related materials—were discoverable under Rule 16 or otherwise required to be produced.

## Decision

- The court denied defendants’ demand for the government’s entire investigative file and rejected generalized discovery requests that would function as a preview of the government’s proof.
- The court required the government to provide discovery to the extent mandated by Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, and to disclose exculpatory and impeachment material required by Brady and Giglio in time for its effective use at trial.
- The court declined to order early production of Jencks Act witness statements beyond the statutory framework.
- The court denied most requests for bills of particulars, finding that the indictment’s detail, combined with discovery and disclosures provided (or to be provided), sufficiently informed defendants of the charges and reduced the risk of unfair surprise.
- The court granted only limited, rule-based relief as to specific categories of requested information, rather than ordering broad, open-ended disclosure.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal discovery under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 is limited; defendants are not entitled to the prosecution’s entire investigative file or the government’s internal materials simply to learn its proof in advance.
- Brady requires disclosure of favorable evidence material to guilt or punishment; Giglio requires disclosure of material impeachment information (including certain witness benefits or promises) in time for effective use at trial, but not necessarily on the defendants’ preferred timetable.
- The Jencks Act generally controls the timing of production of government-witness statements, and courts ordinarily will not compel pretrial production outside that statutory schedule.
- A bill of particulars serves to inform the accused of the charge with enough specificity to prepare for trial, avoid unfair surprise, and plead double jeopardy; it is not a tool to obtain a detailed listing of the government’s evidence or trial strategy.
- In deciding whether a bill of particulars is needed, a court may consider the detail in the indictment together with other information the government has provided, including discovery materials.

## Conclusion

United States v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068 (S.D.N.Y. 1987), is a pretrial decision in a large narcotics conspiracy prosecution in which the district court largely denied expansive discovery and most bills of particulars, while directing the government to meet its concrete obligations under Rule 16 and Brady/Giglio and declining to accelerate Jencks disclosures beyond the statutory schedule.


United States v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068 (1987)