Order — No. 1:21-cr-00470 (Dkt. 117, D. Md.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Nichelle Henson, Crim. No.: MJM-21-470, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, filed April 22, 2024 as Document 117 (3 pages) and signed by Judge Matthew J. Maddox after a pretrial motions hearing. It denies the defendant's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102), finding no shown irregularity in the grand jury proceedings, and denies her requests for a bill of particulars (ECF No. 105) and for accommodation (ECF No. 107) and her oral request to postpone trial. The order allows a motion about ex parte orders for disclosure of tax information and sets May 3, 2024 for that motion and for motions in limine, with responses due May 17, 2024 and replies May 31, 2024.

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 1:21-cr-00470-MJM         Document 117         Filed 04/22/24       Page 1 of 3



                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

      v.

    NICHELLE HENSON,                                         Crim. No.: MJM-21-470

      Defendant.


                                                ORDER

           This matter came before the Court for a pretrial motions hearing on April 22, 2024. The

Court has considered defendant Nichelle Henson’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 102), reply and

supplemental materials in support of the Motion to Dismiss (ECF Nos. 104, 106, 111 & 115),

“Request for Leave to File a Bill of Particulars”1 (ECF No. 105), and “Request for Reasonable

Accommodation” (ECF No. 107), as well as the government’s response in opposition to the

Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 108).

           Regarding the Motion to Dismiss, the Court finds that the defendant has failed to identify

or demonstrate an irregularity in grand jury proceedings or related investigation that substantially

influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S.

250, 256 (1988). She has further failed to make a showing sufficient to give the Court doubt that

the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of any irregularity in grand jury

proceedings. Id. Dismissal of the indictment is therefore unwarranted. Furthermore, the defendant

has failed to demonstrate entitlement to the discovery she requests because she has not shown any




1
 Because the defendant requests certain categories of information from the government, the Court construes
the request as one for an order directing the government to file a bill of particulars.

                                                 1 of 3
         Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM           Document 117         Filed 04/22/24       Page 2 of 3



particularized need for grand jury transcripts,2 failed to present objective evidence tending to show

the existence of prosecutorial misconduct or bad faith or discriminatory intent or effect in the

government’s exercise of prosecutorial discretion. See United States v. Sells Eng’g, Inc., 463 U.S.

418, 443 (1983); United States v. Wilson, 262 F.3d 305, 314–16 (4th Cir. 2001); United States v.

Venable, 666 F.3d 893, 900 (4th Cir. 2012), as amended (Feb. 15, 2012).

         The defendant has also failed to provide any legal justification for suppression of evidence

not addressed in prior Orders of the Court. However, the Court will permit the defendant to file a

motion requesting relief from any alleged defects in ex parte orders for disclosure of tax

information related to this case, and the government may oppose the motion. To date, this issue

has not been adequately briefed. The parties are advised to file motions to seal any materials

containing any personal identifying information, confidential information, or sealed matters.

         Regarding the defendant’s request for a bill of particulars, the Court finds that the

indictment provides adequate notice as to the nature of the pending charges, and a bill of particulars

is therefore unwarranted under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

         Regarding the defendant’s “Request for Reasonable Accommodation,” the Court finds

most of the accommodations requested unnecessary. The defendant will be afforded opportunities

to consult stand-by counsel and to request clarification as needed during future proceedings to the

extent that any such consultations and requests do not disrupt the proceedings or cause undue

delay.




2
 Counsel for the government stated on the record during the hearing on April 22, 2024, that it will timely
comply with provisions of Standing Order 2020-01 regarding the disclosure of Jencks material, including
any transcripts of grand jury testimony by witnesses who will be called to testify at trial.

                                                 2 of 3
          Case 1:21-cr-00470-MJM        Document 117         Filed 04/22/24       Page 3 of 3



          Finally, during the hearing on April 22, 2024, the defendant made an oral request to

postpone the deadline for motions in limine and to postpone the trial date. The motion to postpone

the trial date will be denied, but the Court will extend the deadline for motions in limine.

          For reasons explained above and on the record during the hearing on April 22, 2024, it is

this 22nd day of April 2024, by the United States District Court for the District of Maryland,

          ORDERED that the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 102) is DENIED; and it is

further

          ORDERED that the defendant’s request for a bill of particulars (ECF No. 105) is DENIED;

and it is further

          ORDERED that the defendant’s request for accommodations (ECF No. 107) is DENIED;

and it is further

          ORDERED that the defendant’s oral request to postpone trial is DENIED; and it is further

          ORDERED that any motion by the defendant seeking relief regarding any ex parte orders

for disclosure of tax information3 and any motions in limine or Daubert challenges by either party

shall be filed no later than May 3, 2024; any responses shall be filed no later than May 17, 2024,

and any replies shall be filed no later than May 31, 2024; and it is further

          ORDERED that all remaining dates set in the Letter Order entered on January 3, 2024

(ECF No. 96) shall remain in force and effect.




                                                         ___/S/_________________________
                                                         Matthew J. Maddox
                                                         United States District Judge



3
  Any memorandum in support of, or in opposition to, any such motion shall not exceed ten (10) pages in
length. Any reply shall not exceed five (5) pages in length.

                                                3 of 3


File and source

File

117.pdf

Size

110,913 bytes

SHA-256

d0f6d8af99f876dbdc7962b71b8e68a8a95055678a4798b62d63556b838912d0

Our copy

117.pdf

Original

archive.org