Ruling on Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars — United States v. John Trasacco, Criminal No. 3:22-CR-33 (OAW) (Dkt. 136, D. Conn.)

Summary

A ruling filed 11/02/22 as Document 136 in United States v. John Trasacco, Criminal No. 3:22-CR-33 (OAW), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, in which Judge Omar A. Williams denies Trasacco's motion for a bill of particulars. The February 17, 2022 indictment charges Trasacco and Michael DiMassa, a City of West Haven employee, with conspiring to defraud West Haven by billing it for COVID-related goods and services that were never provided; the ruling notes that West Haven received approximately $1,150,257 from the Coronavirus Relief Fund. The indictment alleges five checks totaling approximately $431,982 to Trasacco's companies, L & H Company, LLC and JIL Sanitation Solutions, LLC, and bases the wire fraud count on a $68,728.00 check. The court holds that the charges are not so general that they fail to advise Trasacco of the specific acts alleged.

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 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 136 Filed 11/02/22 Page 1 of 5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
:
v. : Criminal No. 3:22-CR-33 (OAW)
:
JOHN TRASACCO :

RULING ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS

Defendant John Trasacco (“Mr. Trasacco” or “Defendant”), has filed a Motion for a

Bill of Particulars, ECF No. 107, seeking further articulation of the charges against him in

Counts One and Two of the Indictment, ECF No. 26. Because Defendant has failed to

carry his burden of showing the insufficiency of the facts asserted in support of those

charges, the motion hereby is DENIED.

I. FACTS

On February 18, 2022, Mr. Trasacco, along with co-defendants Michael DiMassa

(“Mr. DiMassa”), Lauren Knox1 and John Bernardo, were arraigned pursuant to a

February 17, 2022, Indictment. The Indictment charges Mr. Trasacco with Wire Fraud

and with Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud in violation of 18 United States Code Sections

1343 and 1349, respectively. ECF No. 26 at 1—4.

The Indictment alleges that during all times relevant to the within charges, the City

of West Haven employed Mr. DiMassa in various positions “including as an Administrative

Assistant to the West Haven City Council, Clerk of the West Haven City Council, Assistant

to the West Haven Mayor, and Assistant to the West Haven Registrar of Voters.” Id. at ¶

1. Also during the relevant timeframe, Mr. Trasacco (the instant movant) was a resident

1
Ms. Knox has since changed her last name to her married name, DiMassa.

1
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 136 Filed 11/02/22 Page 2 of 5

of West Haven, the organizer and signatory of L & H Company, LLC (“L & H”), and the

sole principal and signatory of JIL Sanitation Solutions, LLC (“JIL”). Id. at ¶¶ 4—8.

To help local governments pay for expenses related to the Covid-19 pandemic,

Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (the “CARES

Act”), Public Law 116-136, 134 Stat. 281 (2020), which established the Coronavirus Relief

Fund (“CRF”). Id. at ¶ 2. West Haven “received approximately $1,150,257 in financial

assistance from this fund” from July 1, 2020, through September 30, 2021. Id.

Count One charges Mr. Trasacco and Mr. DiMassa with engaging in a conspiracy

to commit wire fraud from in or about January 2021 to in or about November 2021.

Specifically, the indictment charges these defendants with “defrauding the City of West

Haven by taking money designated for the benefit of the citizens of West Haven for their

own use by billing West Haven for COVID-related services that were never provided.” Id.

at ¶ 9. Count One states that based on invoices for services allegedly performed by Mr.

Trasacco’s companies (L & H and JIL), id. at ¶ 10, Mr. DiMassa “caused the City of West

Haven to issue payments for the fraudulent invoices in the form of a check, to either L &

H Company or JIL Sanitation Services”, id. at ¶ 11. Mr. DiMassa “included charges for

goods and services never received by West Haven, including thousands of units of

Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), HVAC maintenance at multiple municipal

locations, COVID supplies for the Board of Education, and cleaning services for various

municipal and school buildings.” Id. at ¶ 12. As a result, West Haven “issue[d] five checks

totaling approximately $431,982 to the entities controlled by TRASACCO.” Id. at ¶ 13.

Count One charges Trasacco with “negotiat[ing] the checks procured by DIMASSA . . .

2
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 136 Filed 11/02/22 Page 3 of 5

and then us[ing] the money for his own benefit” in violation of 18 United States Code

Section 1349. Id. at ¶ 14.

Count Two of the Indictment, charging Defendants DiMassa and Trasacco with

wire fraud, states as follows:

15. Paragraphs 1 through 14 are incorporated by reference.
16. On or about February 12, 2021, for the purpose of executing the scheme and
artifice described in Count One, defendants DIMASSA and TRASACCO knowingly
caused the interstate wire transmission of certain writings, signs, signals, pictures,
and sounds, that is, an interstate wire transmission caused by the negotiation by
TRASACCO of Check Number xxxxx7003 issued by the City of West Haven and
made payable to L & H Company in the amount of $68,728.00.
In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2.2

Id. at ¶¶ 15—16.

II. STANDARD

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) provides that an indictment “must be a

plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense

charged . . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 7(c)(1). Pursuant to Rule 7(f), “[t]he court may direct

the government to file a bill of particulars”, and a “defendant may move for a bill of

particulars before or within 14 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits.”

Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 7(f).

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to provide a defendant with “information about

the details of the charge against him if this is necessary to the preparation of his defense,

and to avoid prejudicial surprise at the trial.” United States v. Torres, 901 F.2d 205, 234

(2d Cir. 1990) (quoting 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 129, at 434–35 (2d

ed. 1982)), abrogated on other grounds by United States v. Marcus, 628 F.3d 36, 41 (2d

2
Count Two includes an aiding and abetting charge. 18 U.S.C. § 2.

3
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 136 Filed 11/02/22 Page 4 of 5

Cir. 2010). “While district courts have wide discretion in deciding whether to order the

Government to write a bill of particulars, [c]ourts are only required to grant a bill of

particulars ‘where the charges of the indictment are so general that they do not advise

the defendant of the specific acts of which he is accused.” United States v. Sistrunk, 2022

WL 2527971, at *2 (D. Conn. July 7, 2022) (quoting United States v. Raniere, 384 F.

Supp. 3d 282, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting United States v. Chen, 378 F.3d 151, 163

(2d Cir. 2004))). The information sought must be necessary such that the defendant

shows prejudice from the court’s denial of the bill of particulars. See id.

The Second Circuit has recognized that “[t]he prosecution need not particularize

all of its evidence,” United States v. Davidoff, 845 F.2d 1151, 1154 (2d Cir. 1988) (citing

United States v. Gottlieb, 493 F.2d 987, 994 (2d Cir. 1974)), and a defendant may not

use a bill of particulars as “an investigative tool” in an effort “to force the government to

preview its evidence or expose its legal theory.” United States v. Massino, 605 F. Supp.

1565, 1582 (S.D.N.Y. 1985), rev'd on other grounds, 784 F.2d 153 (2d Cir. 1986).

III. DISCUSSION

Mr. Trasacco points out that while Count Two incorporates by reference the

allegations of Count One, it only specifically cites a single financial transaction.

Accordingly, he maintains, “It is not clear whether Count two includes only this instance

of alleged interstate wire transmission, or every instance alluded to in the above

paragraphs pertaining to the conspiracy charge.” Def. Mot., ECF No. 107 at 2—3. He

seeks to have the government specifically articulate the “basis for charging Mr. Trasacco

with Count 2, and the specific transactions to which it applies.” Id. at 3.

4
Case 3:22-cr-00033-OAW Document 136 Filed 11/02/22 Page 5 of 5

The government responds that the defendant has not articulated a sufficient basis

for a bill of particulars in this case. Specifically, the government states that Count Two of

the Indictment provides sufficient factual specificity, including “the date, the amount of

money, the alleged violation of law, and provides a redacted check number.” Govt. Opp.,

ECF No. 110 at 3. It notes that it “has supplied a ‘wealth of evidentiary detail’ more than

adequate to apprise Trasacco of the charges against him, minimize the danger of unfair

surprise, and protect his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Id. (quoting Torres,

901 F.2d at 233-34).

The court agrees that the articulation of the charges against Mr. Trasacco in the

Indictment are not “‘so general that they do not advise the defendant of the specific acts

of which he is accused.’” Torres, 901 F.2d at 234 (2d Cir. 1990) (quoting United States

v. Feola, 651 F. Supp. 1068, 1132 (S.D.N.Y.1987), aff'd, 875 F.2d 857 (2d Cir.) (mem.),

cert. denied, 493 U.S. 834 (1989)). While Count Two specifically references only one

check number and transaction, it incorporates the conduct from the immediately prior

conspiracy count, a charge that includes reference to five checks totaling approximately

$431,982. Defendant does not take issue with, or make reference to, any discovery

provided in this case. The court concludes that the government has stated with sufficient

particularly the charges against Mr. Trasacco, and that it need not “particularize all of its

evidence,” Davidoff, 845 F.2d at 1154 (citation omitted), nor “expose its legal theory.”

Massino, 605 F. Supp. at 1582. Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED at Hartford, Connecticut, this 2nd day of November, 2022.

/s/
OMAR A. WILLIAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

File and source

File: 136.pdf
Size: 145,791 bytes
SHA-256: b0b32e51e4c69941473099e6435ef88d7ac90c0ea7b906868b4a0f070f3335df
Our copy: 136.pdf
Original: No public link identified.