We represent Rafael Martinez and submit this brief reply on our motion for a bill of

Summary

A reply letter to Judge Lewis J. Liman filed March 7, 2023 as Document 62 in United States v. Rafael Martinez, 22 Cr. 251 (LJL), Case 1:22-cr-00251-LJL, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, by counsel for the defendant. The letter replies on the defense motion for a bill of particulars and makes three points. It argues that the scope of the revised Count One remains unclear, including whether the government claims the defendant deceived the Federal Reserve or other third parties in addition to the Company. It contends the request was not untimely because the Superseding Indictment changed the theory, and that the volume of discovery and an index of productions do not substitute for particulars. It asks that a limited bill of particulars as to Count One be granted, ahead of trial on May 1.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

        Case 1:22-cr-00251-LJL         Document 62        Filed 03/07/23    Page 1 of 2




                                        tkasulis@maglaw.com
                                            (212) 880-9555


                                         March 7, 2023

Hon. Lewis J. Liman
United States District Judge
Southern District of New York
500 Pearl Street
New York, New York 10007

       Re:     United States v. Rafael Martinez,
               22 Cr. 251 (LJL)

Dear Judge Liman:

        We represent Rafael Martinez and submit this brief reply on our motion for a bill of
particulars to make three short points.

        First, the scope of the revised Count One is still not clear from the government’s
opposition papers. As an example, the government states: “[I]n seeking particulars, the
defendant claims that he ‘cannot know if the government is claiming that he also deceived the
Company, the Federal Reserve, or any other person or entity.’ Def. Br. at 3-4. But the Complaint
specifically describes how the defendant submitted fraudulent audited financial statements to the
Company in connection with the Company’s due diligence on MBE, before giving MBE $100
million in capital.” Opposition at 4. This is only a partial answer to Mr. Martinez’s request. Is
the government claiming that Mr. Martinez also deceived the Federal Reserve – or any other
third party – in addition to the Company? There is no way to tell.

        Second, the government suggests that Mr. Martinez should have made a motion for a bill
of particulars earlier because “the government’s theory was inarguably set forth in its initial
opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss.” Opposition at 5 n.2. But as Mr. Martinez
argued in his motion to dismiss, that theory was not the one set forth in the Indictment. To fix
that error, the government returned a superseding instrument. Mr. Martinez now requires limited
particulars to address the scope of the revised Count One to be ready for trial on May 1.

       Third, the government suggests that the substantial volume of discovery in this case –
including yet another Rule 16 production made as recently as today – should weigh against
        Case 1:22-cr-00251-LJL         Document 62        Filed 03/07/23     Page 2 of 2




Hon. Lewis J. Liman
Page 2

particulars because the government “has included an index of the items produced, identified by
category, and Bates number range” and the documents can be “loaded, reviewed, and searched.”
Opposition at 4. Respectfully, that is what the government does in nearly every case. These are
not the meaningful “roadmaps” or lengthy speaking indictments cited in the cases upon which
the government relies.

       Mr. Martinez’s request for a limited bill of particulars only as to Count One of the
Superseding Indictment should be granted.

                                             Respectfully submitted,

                                             MORVILLO ABRAMOWITZ GRAND IASON &
                                             ANELLO, P.C.

                                             /s/ Telemachus P. Kasulis
                                             Telemachus P. Kasulis
                                             Elkan Abramowitz

                                             WILLKIE FARR & GALLAGHER LLP

                                             Michael S. Schachter
                                             Randall Jackson

                                             Counsel for Rafael Martinez

cc:    AUSA Katherine C. Reilly
       AUSA Micah F. Fergensen
       AUSA Steven J. Kochevar


File and source

File

CASE_SDNY_1-22-cr-00251_US-v-Martinez_doc62_LETTER-REPLY-BILL-OF-PARTICULARS_2023-03-07.pdf

Size

185,247 bytes

SHA-256

47cd3ad83e8304765c704d6feafd86b049e70669ec069b2a92f13eadcb1fe1e2

Our copy

CASE_SDNY_1-22-cr-00251_US-v-Martinez_doc62_LETTER-REPLY-BILL-OF-PARTICULARS_2023-03-07.pdf

Original

www.justice.gov