Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Duruisseau

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division

February 5, 2015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DEION DURUISSEAU (01), LASHAWN DURUISSEAU (02), HAROLD LEE (03)

RULING & ORDER

DEE D. DRELL, District Judge.

Before the Court is Defendant Harold Lee's Second Motion for Bill of Particulars (Doc. 128), which has been adopted by Defendant Deion Duruisseau (Doc. 140). Additionally we have Defendant Harold Lee's Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Indictment (Doc. 127), Defendant Deion Duruisseau's Motion to Dismiss Count One of the Indictment, and Alternatively, to Limit Count One (Doc. 129) (which essentially adopts Defendant Lee's motion and which was adopted by Defendant LaShawn Duruisseau, Docs. 134 and 139). We have considered the filings and evidence in the record and are prepared to decide on the pending motions in turn. For the following reasons, Defendant Lee's Second Motion for a Bill of Particulars and Defendant Duruisseau's like Motion adopting will be GRANTED. The three motions to dismiss will be DENIED.

I. Background

Mr. Lee (and by adoption, the two Duruisseau defendants) first asks us to dismiss Count One of the indictment or, in the alternative, to limit it only to the transactions and fraudulent statements listed in Counts Two and Three of the indictment. He asserts Count One is deficient because "(1) it identifies no specific transactions as a part of the conspiracy and (2) it identifies no specific misrepresentations." (Doc. 127-1). The second separate motion asks for a second bill of particulars because of Particulars provided by the Government.

Count One of the Second Superceding Indictment charges the three Defendants with Conspiracy to Commit Bank and Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1349. It asserts that certain real estate properties were financed with mortgage loans "submitted and caused to be submitted" by the three defendants. It then recites the elements of bank fraud and wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and § 1344, and asserts that the Defendants conspired to commit these crimes through materially false statements on loan application documents.

By way of history, the Magistrate Judge in this case granted a First Motion for Bill of Particulars by Mr. Lee in April 2014 (Doc. 97). The Government appealed this decision and this Court denied that appeal in part and granted it in part, and specifically ordered that the Government provide Mr. Lee with the following information:

1. As to all bank transactions which are the subject of the conspiracy, which specific transactions does the Government maintain Defendant Lee was actively involved in any capacity (other than as a mere part interest owner); and
2. The dates, times and places when and where the conspiracy was carried out and the identities of the named co-conspirators who participated at each such date, time and place.

(Doc. 119). The Government filed its bill of particulars in August 2014 (Doc. 122). This document lists many properties for which Mr. Lee was the closing attorney, but also notes that Mr. Lee was "actively involved in more real estate closings during the existence of the conspiracy, " and that these other closings are "including but not limited to" the list provided in the bill of particulars. (Doc. 122 p. 2). The bill of particulars also notes that the Government cannot provide all of the times associated with the execution of the conspiracy. The Government's stated reason for this inability is that the files relating to the real estate transactions listed in the bill of particulars include documents that contain date and time stamps, and Defendants have been provided with these documents as discovery.

In a memorandum supporting his second motion, Mr. Lee argues that the first Bill of Particulars does not sufficiently "clarify the scope, extent, nature, and basis of the alleged conspiracy." (Doc. 128-1). Because of this, he asks this Court to require the Government to state:

1. The transactions in which Lee is alleged to have submitted fraudulent information or otherwise made a criminal misrepresentation.
2. With regard to each of the transactions identified, the information that Lee is alleged to have fabricated, lied about, or otherwise misrepresented. (Doc. 128-1).

Mr. Duruisseau, who has not received his first bill of particulars from the Government[1], still adopts by motion Mr. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.