◆ SpookStack

JN 44-1] “written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.' It is not necessary to allege with tech- nical precisicn all of the elements essential to the com- mission of the offense which is the object of the conspiracy. In Weng Tai v. United States, 47 S.Ct. 300, it is said: ‘In charging such a conspiracy certainty, to a common intent, sufficient to identify the offense which the defendants corspired to commit, it is all that is necessary.' There the defendants sought as here to discover the government's evidence to which the Court said that the defendants were not evtitled. A defendant in a criminal case may not resort _ to a motion for a bill of particulars as a discovery device. Tr Van Tiew v, UVrited States, 321 F.2d 664, the Court in this circuit said that it is not the office of a bill of particulars to ascertain what offense is charged. In Jchnson_v. United States, 207 F.2d 314, the Court in this circuit said: ‘The government should not be compelled by a bill of particulars to give a detailed disclesure of its evidence, as would have been required by compliance with the meticn.' The indictment here contains a sufficiently definite written statement of the offense to enable the deferdants to properly and fairly present their defense thereto, It is likewise sufficiently definite and clear to ferestall any possibility of double jeopardy. The motion is without merit and will be overruled. "7, Numerous motions are presented by the defen- darts for severarce urder Criminal Rule 14, Criminal Rule 8 authorizes the joinder of offenses and of defendants under stated circumstances. Criminal Rule 14 vests the Court with a sound judicial discretion to grant such relief as may be necessary in any case to assure a fair trial for each defendant. Opper v. United States, 75 §.Ct. 158. Nothing has been presented to the Court to convince it that a sever- ance of any other defendants, other than Horace Doyle Barnette who has already been severed from this proceeding, is necessary in this case. But under the circumstances it would appear to be fair and just that all of the defendants be first tried under the first count of this indictment in can af A)? lomen ich - 30 -