Federal prosecutors here have objected to terror suspect Tahawwur Rana’s demand for specific details about his involvement in Indian and Danish terror plots, saying the government has already provided “more than sufficient” information to prepare his defence for trial.
In a 12—page response to Rana’s pre—trial motions, the government said it has provided and will continue to provide “extensive discovery” relating to Rana’s conduct, including his interactions with co—defendant David Headley and his own actions taken to assist Headley in carrying out conspiracies.
“Thus, based on the adequacy of the indictment and the extensive pre-trial disclosures undertaken by the government, the defendant has more than sufficient information from which to conduct his own investigation and prepare his defence.
“Accordingly, the Court should deny the defendant’s motion for a bill of particulars,” the government’s response submitted in the U.S. District Court here said.
Prosecutors said a defendant has a “constitutional right to know the offence with which he is charged, but not to know the details of how it will be proved“.
Rana’s lawyer Patrick Blegen had in February filed motions asking prosecutors to provide a “bill of particulars” — specific details about the “material support and resources” that the superseding indictment allege the Pakistani—Canadian had provided to terrorist plots in India and Denmark.
Blegen had said the government should identify the material support and resources that Rana and co—conspirators allegedly provided regarding terrorism in India. He said he needed the information to adequately prepare for trial.
Responding to the motions, prosecutors said the information already provided to Rana includes copies of recorded conversations and emails between Headley, Rana and other participants in the conspiracies; complete video—taped post—arrest statements of Rana and Headley, reports relating to Headley’s proffer, Headley’s testimony before the grand jury, evidence obtained through grand jury subpoenas and evidence seized during search warrants executed at multiple locations.
“To date, the government estimates that it has provided over 20,000 documents, in addition to the various recordings and draft transcripts,” the motion said.
Prosecutors said Rana simply looks past the specific allegations of the superseding indictment and says little about the extensive discovery that has been provided, claiming that the superseding indictment lists only “broad categories“.
“By seeking more particularity, the defendant essentially is requesting the government to point to the particular evidence of each allegation. This is not a proper purpose of a bill of particulars,” it said. .
