The opinion of the court was delivered by: Terrence F. McVerry United States District Court Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT
Presently before the Court for disposition is the MOTION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS filed by Defendant, Christina Marie Korbe (Document No. 103) and the RESPONSE in opposition filed by the government (Document No. 162). For the reasons that follow, the Motion will be granted in part and denied in part.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) provides as follows: The Court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars. The defendant may move for a bill of particulars before or within 10 days after arraignment or at a later time if the court permits. The government may amend a bill of particulars subject to such conditions as justice requires.
A district court has broad discretion in granting or denying a criminal defendant's motion for a bill of particulars. United States v. Rosa, 891 F.2d 1063, 1066 (3d Cir. 1989); Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). Among the purposes of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges brought against him or her so that the defendant is able to adequately prepare a defense. United States v. Addonizio, 451 F.2d 49, 63 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 40 U.S. 936 (1972). The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has instructed that a district court should grant a motion seeking a bill of particulars when an indictment's failure to provide factual or legal information "significantly impairs the defendant's ability to prepare his defense or is likely to lead to prejudicial surprise at trial." Rosa, 891 F.2d at 1066. However, a defendant is not entitled to general discovery of the government's case, evidence or witnesses. United States v. Armocida, 515 F.2d 49, 52 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 858 (1975).
A bill of particulars should reveal "only the minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation." United States v. Smith, 776 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985). In ruling on a request for a bill of particulars, the Court should consider all information that has been disclosed to the defendant in the course of the prosecution, whether or not included in the indictment. United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205, 1212 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 914 (1972).
Defendant requests that the following information be disclosed:
A. As to Count Four of the Superseding Indictment: "1. Identify with particularity what, if any, acts Robert Korbe did as the principal that would indicate in any way that he possessed the .38 caliber Taurus revolver.
2. Identify with particularity what, if any, acts Christina Korbe did as the licensed owner of the .38 caliber Taurus revolver that would in any way indicate that she aided and abetted her husband in his alleged possession of the .38 caliber Taurus Revolver."
B. As to Count Five of the Superseding Indictment: "1. Identify with particularity who is described by the phrase "persons both known and unknown to the grand jury," with whom Christina allegedly conspired.
2. Identify with particularity what, if any acts Christina Korbe did as a principal during the alleged 18 year time period of the drug conspiracy stating the facts describing each act and the identities of anyone alleged to have been a participant in each act, the date of each act, and the place of each act."
C. As to Count Six of the Superseding Indictment: "1. Identify with particularity the alleged principal(s) and the alleged ...