UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Criminal Action No. 22-170 (CKK)
TREVOR BROWN,
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(January 4, 2024)
Defendant Trevor Brown is charged by indictment with one felony and three misdemeanor
counts in connection with his conduct at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. See
Indictment, ECF No. 30. Before the Court is Defendant’s [84] Motion for a Bill of Particulars
(“Motion” or “Mot.”). Defendant requests that the Court order the Government to provide—in the
form of a bill of particulars—the “act or acts the Government intends to prove constituted a
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3)” on January 6, 2021. Mot. at 1.
Upon consideration of the briefing,1 the relevant legal authorities, and the entire record, the
Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant’s [84] Motion for a Bill of
Particulars.
1
The Court’s consideration has focused on:
Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars, ECF No. 84;
The Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of Particulars (“Gov’t’s
Opp’n”), ECF No. 87;
Defendant’s Reply to the Government’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for a Bill of
Particulars (“Reply”), ECF No. 88;
The Government’s Statement of Facts in support of its Criminal Complaint, ECF No. 1-1
(“Statement of Facts”); and
The Indictment, ECF No. 30 (“Indictment”).
1
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant is charged by indictment with: (1) Civil Disorder and Aiding and Abetting, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3) and 2; (2) Entering and Remaining in a Restricted Building
or Grounds, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1); (3) Disorderly and Disruptive Conduct in a
Restricted Building or Grounds, in violation 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(2); and (4) Disorderly Conduct
in a Capitol Building, in violation of 40 U.S.C. § 5104(e)(2)(D).
A. Defendant’s Alleged Conduct on January 6, 2021
Defendant is one of hundreds of individuals charged with federal crimes for his conduct on
January 6, 2021. According to the Statement of Facts accompanying the Criminal Complaint,
Defendant traveled from Novi, Michigan to Washington, D.C. on or about January 6, 2021 to
protest the results of the 2020 Presidential election. See Statement of Facts, ECF No. 1-1, at 2. A
variety of photos and videos depict Defendant at the front of a “crowd of rioters trying to push
their way into the Capitol building.” Id.; see generally id. at 2–13. Specifically, Defendant is seen
outside the Lower West Terrace of the Capitol building, assisting fellow rioters by “pushing” their
way into the tunnel, “shouting into [a] bullhorn,” and grabbing a riot shield and holding it up while
two rioters step onto the shield. Id. at 7, 10. Defendant was also among the few rioters who, after
pushing to the front of the mob, succeeded in breaking through the police line in the tunnel. Id. at
13.
The Statement of Facts also discusses the numerous social media posts published by
Defendant following the Capitol riot on January 6th. For instance, on January 6, 2021, Defendant
posted on Facebook, stating: “The world is a stage & Jiu jitsu saved my life many times tonight.”
Id. at 3. Another post, published on January 7, 2021, stated, inter alia: “People should be storming
that Brothel we call the Capitol everyday for what goes on in there. . . . We should have cleaned
2
that brothel out a long time ago. . . . It needs to get stormed every time they sell us out to some
industry.” Id. at 4. That same day, Defendant also wrote: “We the people need one more solid
rally like this and CONgress will be forced to bow and be thrown out for not representing the will
of the people and charged with crimes against humanity.” Id. Defendant described his particular
experience in three other social media posts: “Who knew the first time I’d go to DC I’d be storming
the Capitol. –and make it in…”; “I made it into the Capitol. I almost died getting in but I made
it.”; and “I am the First person to breech the White House in 200 years[.]” Id. at 5.
B. Procedural History
On June 25, 2021, the Government filed the Criminal Complaint. ECF No. 1. Defendant
was arrested on July 1, 2021, and first appeared before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey on
July 14, 2021. See July 14, 2021 Minute Entry. The Government filed the Indictment on May 18,
2022. ECF No. 30. On June 3, 2022, Defendant pleaded “not guilty” to the charges in the
Indictment. See June 3, 2022 Minute Entry. Defendant subsequently filed a pro se motion to
dismiss the Indictment, which the Court denied. See United States v. Brown, 2022 WL 2828996,
at *1 (D.D.C. July 20, 2022). On May 24, 2023, the Court held a plea hearing in this case. See
May 24, 2023 Minute Entry. The Court rejected Defendant’s attempted plea of “guilty,” as the
colloquy between the Court and Defendant indicated that Defendant’s intent on January 6th, at
least initially, was to share a “vision of peacefulness,” which did not meet the “requirements and
the elements” of the offense. Tr. 48:4–16, May 24, 2023. The case proceeded, with trial tentatively
set for July 29, 2024. See ECF No. 71. On September 14, 2023, Defendant filed the pending
Motion for a Bill of Particulars. ECF No. 84. The Government filed its opposition on September
29, 2023, see ECF No. 87, and Defendant filed his reply on October 6, 2023, see ECF No. 88.
With the Motion now fully briefed, the Court turns to its resolution.
3
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, a “court may direct the government to file
a bill of particulars.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f). A bill of particulars is “a formal written statement by
the government that provides details of the charges in the indictment.” United States v.
Warnagiris, 2023 WL 6926491, at *13 (D.D.C. Oct. 19, 2023) (PLF) (citing Charles A. Wright et
al., Federal Practice & Procedure § 130 (5th ed. 2023)). A bill of particulars “can be used to
ensure that the charges brought against a defendant are stated with enough precision to allow the
defendant to understand the charges, to prepare a defense, and perhaps also to be protected against
retrial on the same charges.” United States v. Mejia, 448 F.3d 436, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting
Untied States v. Butler, 822 F.2d 1191, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). “[I]t is within the discretion of the
trial court to determine whether a bill of particulars should be provided, and the court should grant
a motion for a bill of particulars to the extent it believes it is necessary to allow the defendants to
adequately prepare for and avoid surprise at trial.” United States v. Sutton, 2022 WL 1183797, at
*2 (D.D.C. Apr. 21, 2022) (PLF) (emphasis in original) (quoting United States v. Bazezew, 783 F.
Supp. 2d 160, 167 (D.D.C. 2011) (PLF)).
A bill of particulars, however, “may not be used by a defendant as a discovery tool or a
device to preview the government’s evidence or theory of the case.” Sutton, 2022 WL 1183797,
at *2 (citing United States v. Sanford Ltd., 841 F. Supp. 2d 309, 316 (D.D.C 2012) (BAH)). Rather,
it is “designed to limit and define the government’s case,” id. (quoting Sanford Ltd., 841 F. Supp.
2d at 317), and “enable the defendants to better understand the substance of the charges against
them and to prepare for their defenses,” id. (quoting Bazezew, 783 F. Supp. 2d at 167); see also
Mejia, 448 F.3d at 445.
In ruling on a motion for a bill of particulars, “[t]he Court must strike a prudent balance
4
between the legitimate interests of the government and the defendant.” United States v. Manafort,
2018 WL 10394893, at *1 (D.D.C. June 12, 2018) (ABJ) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted). The Court must weigh “the complexity of the crime charged, the clarity of the
indictment, and the degree of discovery and other sources of information that are available to the
defense.” United States v. Connell, 2023 WL 4286191, at *2 (D.D.C. June 30, 2023) (PLF).
III. DISCUSSION
Defendant moves for a bill of particulars as to Count One of the Indictment. See Mot. at
1. Count One charges Defendant with civil disorder and aiding and abetting, in violation of
18 U.S.C. §§ 231(a)(3) and 2. See Indictment, ECF No. 30, at 1. Defendant focuses on Section
231(a)(3). See Mot. at 1. That statute provides:
Whoever commits or attempts to commit any act to obstruct, impede, or interfere
with any fireman or law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful
performance of his official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil
disorder which in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or adversely affects
commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce or the
conduct or performance of any federally protected function . . . [s]hall be fined []
or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
18 U.S.C. § 231(a)(3). Count One of the Indictment appears to mirror this language. See
Indictment, ECF No. 30. It provides:
On or about January 6, 2021, within the District of Columbia, [Defendant]
committed and attempted to commit an act to obstruct, impede, and interfere with
a law enforcement officer lawfully engaged in the lawful performance of their
official duties incident to and during the commission of a civil disorder, which in
any way and degree obstructed, delayed, and adversely affected commerce and the
movement of any article and commodity in commerce and the conduct and
performance of any federally protected function.
Id. at 1. The parties dispute whether the Indictment on its own is sufficient to apprise Defendant
of the conduct charged. See Reply at 1–3 (arguing the factual allegations in the Indictment are
deficient); Gov’t’s Opp’n at 6–8 (arguing the Indictment is sufficient on its own). Because the
5
Court focuses on whether a bill of particulars is necessary based on the Indictment and information
otherwise available to Defendant, its analysis does not consider whether the Indictment, on its
own, is sufficient to provide the requisite notice to Defendant. See, e.g., Butler, 822 F.2d at 1193
(stating a bill of particulars “is not required” if “the indictment is sufficiently specific, or if the
requested information is available in some other form”).
A. The Indictment & Additional Available Information
As noted above, the Indictment in this case mirrors the language contained in Section 231.
See Indictment, ECF No. 30, at 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1), an
indictment need only be “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts
constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c)(1). While Defendant maintains that the
Indictment is “plainly insufficient to put” him on notice of his allegedly unlawful act or acts
because it merely recites the statutory language, Reply at 2–3, Defendant primarily contests the
sufficiency of the Statement of Facts accompanying the Criminal Complaint, see Mot. at 3–5.
Specifically, Defendant argues that the Statement of Facts “does not specify which ‘act’ Defendant
committed that violated Section 231.” Mot. at 3. Defendant discusses the “nine ‘acts’” attributed
to him in the Statement of Facts and asserts that “it is not clear which of these ‘acts,’ if any, violated
Section 231.” Id. at 4. As a result, Defendant “does not understand what act he is accused of
doing that violated [the statute],” “does not understand the charge against him,” “cannot prepare
his defense against it,” and has “double jeopardy concerns.” Id. at 8.
In response, the Government addresses the specific allegations contained in the Statement
of Facts, which, according to the Government, “spells out in considerable detail the basis for the
charges against the defendant[.]” Gov’t’s Opp’n at 12. Of relevance here, the Statement of Facts
provides the following information:
6
(1) The criminal activity alleged occurred on January 6, 2021, in and around
the United States Capitol Grounds;
(2) At approximately 4:11 p.m. that day, law enforcement officers stationed in
the Lower West Terrance entrance of the Capitol building “apprehended
[Defendant], who was at the front of a crowd of rioters trying to push their
way into the Capitol building”;
(3) Evidence from social media “indicating [Defendant’s] participation in the
riots, including breaching the Capitol building”;
(4) Social media post from January 6, 2021, in which Defendant wrote “The
world is a stage & Jiu jitsu saved my life many times tonight”;
(5) Social media statements by Defendant in January 2021, stating, inter alia:
“We the people need one more solid rally like this. . . .,” “People should be
storming that Brothel we call the Capitol everyday. . . .,” “We should have
cleaned that brothel out a long time ago,” and “It needs to get stormed every
time they sell us out to some industry”;
(6) Additional social media statements by Defendant, stating: “Who knew the
first time I’d go to DC I’d be storming the Capitol. –and make it in…”; “I
made it into the Capitol. I almost died getting in but I made it”; and “I am
the First person to breech the White House in 200 years . . . moments
before”;
(7) Video evidence purportedly taken by Defendant, indicating that Defendant
was “outside the lower west terrace entrance to the Capitol building”;
(8) Video evidence obtained during the investigation showing Defendant
“outside the lower west terrace tunnel of the Capitol with a large crowd
trying to push its way into the tunnel” while the tunnel “was being guarded
by both Capitol police officers and a detachment of Metropolitan Police []
officers”;
(9) Video evidence obtained during the investigation depicting Defendant with
a bullhorn, “shouting” into it “as the crowd continues to push into the tunnel
and assault the police officers”;
(10) Video evidence obtained during the investigation depicting Defendant
“pushing his way to the very front of the crowd trying to gain access to the
tunnel,” which involved going “up against the riot shields of the MPD
officers” while “shouting into his bullhorn”; and
(11) Video evidence depicting Defendant reaching out to grab a riot shield, and,
as it is “being held up,” “two rioters . . . step onto the shield.”
See generally Statement of Facts, ECF No.1-1. To further demonstrate that Defendant has been
provided adequate notice, the Government then discusses the information contained in the plea
letter agreement, which Defendant signed on May 16, 2023. Gov’t’s Opp’n at 14. The Statement
of Offense attached to that agreement included, inter alia, the following information regarding
Defendant’s specific conduct:
7
(1) Defendant “positioned himself outside the Lower West Terrance entrance
to the U.S. Capitol building”
(2) By 3:50 p.m., Defendant “had made his way to the front of the crowd near
the Lower West Terrace tunnel”;
(3) Defendant used a “bullhorn to shout at the officers and the crowd pushing
toward the tunnel”;
(4) By 3:57 p.m., Defendant “assisted the riotous mob confronting police
officers by passing back a riot shield while other rioters stepped onto the
shield”;
(5) By 4:11 p.m., Defendant “pushed his way to the front of the crowd to
confront police officers”; and
(6) Defendant “posted multiple statements concerning his conduct on social
media later that same day.”
Id. at 14–15. Lastly, the Government describes the information Defendant has obtained and
reviewed through discovery. For instance, videos that depict Defendant “attempting to push his
way into the tunnel with other rioters as a part of a ‘heave-ho’”; using a “bullhorn to encourage
other rioters”; and CCTV of Defendant “advancing towards the line of officers until he was
apprehended by police.” Id. at 15. Defendant has also received “photos, reports, social media
postings, and other materials documenting his conduct on January 6, 2021[.]” Id. Accordingly,
all of the information already provided to Defendant, in addition to the Indictment, “make[s] the
relief sought in his Motion unnecessary.” Id. at 12.
Defendant nonetheless argues that the additional information identified by the Government
is still insufficient. See generally Reply at 4–9. First, Defendant states that the Government merely
“regurgitated the factual allegations” in the Statement of Facts without “any indication of what
specifically constitutes the act of allegedly obstructing, impeding, and interfering with a law
enforcement officer.” Id. at 6 (emphasis in original). According to Defendant, the Government’s
“vague contentions” fail to inform him what conduct he precisely engaged in that allegedly
violated Section 231(a)(3). Id. at 7; see id. at 6–7 (asking if Defendant’s crime was “pushing,”
“encouraging,” being “near” the vicinity, etc.). As for the discovery, Defendant argues that the
8
“documents provided” do “not provide any guidance as to what conduct allegedly violates the
statute,” and the video evidence is “unclear and does little more than identify [Defendant] and
indicate that” he was in fact “jumped on and thrown to the ground.” Id. at 8. Finally, with respect
to the plea agreement, Defendant states that he “clearly did not understand what he had signed,”
and notes that the Court rejected his plea of “guilty.” Id. at 12. Defendant further suggests that
the plea may have been rejected “because the allegations are so broad and vague that they cannot
be understood without greater particularity.” Id.
B. Defendant Is Not Entitled To Additional Information Regarding His Alleged
Physical Conduct
With respect to Defendant’s alleged physical conduct, the Court finds that a bill of
particulars is not necessary in this case because “the requested information is available in some
other form,” Butler, 822 F.2d at 1193, such as the Statement of Facts and Statement of Offense, as
well as the various discovery Defendant has access to.
The Court begins by addressing Defendant’s suggestion that the Court rejected his
attempted plea of “guilty” “because the allegations are so broad and vague that they cannot be
understood without greater particularity.” Id. Not so. Having reviewed the transcript from the
proceeding, see ECF No. 81, it is clear that Defendant’s attempted plea was rejected because his
statements in response to the Court’s questioning contradicted the requirements and the elements
of the offense, see Tr. 42:17–23, May 24, 2023 (“[Y]ou need to understand that the charge that
you’re pleading guilty to has you either obstructing or impeding or somehow interfering with law
enforcement, which is contrary to trying to keep the peace—with law enforcement in terms of their
goal of trying to keep the peace and to keep the rioters from going into the Capitol.”); id. 48:5–10
(“I’ve learned not to accept pleas if they don’t really meet the elements of the offense. And we
don’t have anything that indicates that he talks about where [he] made a mistake, his intent, the
9
vision when [he] was driving. [He] had a vision but in the moment wasn’t able to fulfill it. He
talked about his vision.”); id. 46:1–4 (“[H]is purposes are still aligning himself, frankly, in terms
of making the peace with the officers. So I don’t think I can accept it at this point.”). Therefore,
the information contained in the plea agreement is still additional information that provides
Defendant with details regarding the underlying conduct for which he is charged.
The Court is also not persuaded by Defendant’s remaining contentions regarding his
physical conduct. The Statement of Facts provides detailed allegations regarding Defendant’s
specific conduct during the Capitol riot, as well as the basis for these allegations. See generally
Statement of Facts. And, through discovery, Defendant has access to videos, photographs, reports,
social media posts, and other materials documenting his conduct on January 6, 2021. See Gov’t’s
Opp’n at 15. Moreover, Defendant’s statements suggest that he is primarily seeking for the
Government to explain its theories and evidence of the case. See, e.g., Mot. at 9 (requesting the
Government to explain “what act or acts were allegedly committed” and “how the act or acts
violated [Section 231(a)(3)”); Reply at 6–7 (asking if Defendant’s crime was “pushing,”
“encouraging,” being “near” the vicinity, etc.). However, a bill of particulars is “not a discovery
tool,” nor is it a “device for allowing the defense to preview the government’s evidence.” United
States v. Brodie, 326 F. Supp. 2d 83, 91 (D.D.C. 2004) (ESH) (citing United States v. Ramirez,
54 F. Supp. 2d 25, 29 (D.D.C. 1999) (PLF)). Similarly, “[i]t is not the function of a bill of
particulars to provide detailed disclosure of the government’s evidence in advance of trial.” Id.
(quoting Overton v. United States, 403 F.2d 444, 446 (5th Cir. 1968)). Accordingly, the Court
will not order the Government to “preview [its] theories [and evidence].” Ramirez, 54 F. Supp. 2d
at 29.
C. Defendant Is Entitled To Additional Information Regarding His Alleged Speech
10
While Defendant is not entitled to information from the Government clarifying which
physical act(s) in particular violated Section 231(a)(3), or how such act(s) violated Section
231(a)(3), Defendant is entitled to information from the Government clarifying whether his speech
is the “act,” or one of the “acts,” allegedly committed that constituted civil disorder. See United
States v. Mostofsky, 2021 WL 3168501, at *3–4 (D.D.C. July 27, 2021) (JEB) (requiring the
Government to provide additional information regarding the alleged “act” as “[defendant’s] guilt
may well depend on” whether the “act” was “nonviolent speech” or “[an] act that includes
violence”).
In his reply, Defendant expresses concerns that the Government is “criminalizing speech”
as the Government alleges that Defendant “held and used” a bullhorn. 2 Reply at 12. This argument
does have merit. As evinced above, the Government’s allegations in the charges against Defendant
do involve speech, in addition to physical conduct. See Gov’t’s Opp’n at 13 (discussing
Defendant’s social media posts, including his statements involving “heave-ho”); id. (discussing
Defendant “shouting into a bullhorn”); id. at 14 (discussing Defendant’s use of the bullhorn “to
shout at the officers and the crowd pushing toward”). Because the Government’s allegations do
involve Defendant’s speech, Defendant is entitled to information from the Government that
specifies whether the “act” or “acts” underlying the civil disorder charge is Defendant’s speech or
Defendant’s physical conduct on January 6, 2021, or both. See Mostofsky, 2021 WL 3168501, at
*3–4; see also Warnagiris, 2023 WL 6926491, at *15 (denying bill of particulars detailing the
“act” as defendant did not assert “that he may have an as-applied First Amendment claim
depending on the ‘act’ underlying the civil disorder charge”).
2
Defendant also suggests that the Government may “be prosecuting thought itself.” See Reply at
12. The Court sees no basis for this allegation, nor does Defendant truly address this allegation in
his reply. See generally id.
11
In sum, the Court concludes that Defendant is not entitled to additional information from
the Government regarding the specific physical actions he allegedly committed during the Capitol
riot on January 6, 2021. However, to adequately prepare his defense, Defendant is entitled to a
bill of particulars that clarifies whether the conduct underlying the civil disorder charge is his
speech, in addition to or in lieu of his other conduct. See, e.g., Mostofsky, 2021 WL 3168501, at
*4.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant’s [84] Motion for a Bill of Particulars is GRANTED
IN PART and DENIED IN PART. The Court will not require the Government to provide
additional information regarding Defendant’s physical conduct during the Capitol riot on January
6, 2021. However, the Government shall prepare a bill of particulars clarifying whether the “acts”
underlying the civil disorder charge involve Defendant’s speech. An appropriate order
accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Dated: January 4, 2024 /s/
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
12