Chicago: Rejecting terror suspect Tahawwur
Rana`s demand for more details on his involvement in the 26/11
Mumbai terror attacks, the US prosecutors today said they have
already provided "more than sufficient" information in the
form of over 20,000 documents to him to prepare his defence.
In a 12-page response to Rana`s pre-trial motions, the
prosecutors said they have 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 the
Prosecutors said the court should deny Rana`s request
for more information.
"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.
Information already provided to Rana includes copies
of recorded conversations and emails between Headley, Rana and
other accused in the conspiracies; the 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
"Thus, based on the adequacy of the indictment and the
extensive pretrial 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 US District Court here said.
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
businessman had provided to terror 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.
Prosecutors, however, 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
"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.
A bill of particulars is not necessary in this case
not only because the superseding indictment provides far more
detail than necessary to apprise the defendant of the charges
against him, but also because the government is providing
extensive discovery relating to such charges, the response
Prosecutors said a defendant has a "constitutional
right to know the offense with which he is charged, but not to
know the details of how it will be proved".
Blegen said he is seeking the information so that Rana
is "sufficiently apprised" of the scope of the government`s
allegations and is "adequately prepared" for trial.
Rana has pleaded not guilty to charges that he
provided material support to the Mumbai terror strikes as well
as a plot to attack a Danish newspaper.