![]() ![]() State codes of CRIMINAL PROCEDURE and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure regulate the use of bills of particulars in criminal prosecutions in their respective courts. As in civil procedure, a bill of particulars is not intended to serve as a discovery device. The defendant is given notice of the offenses with which he or she is charged so that a defense may be prepared and the possibility of surprise or DOUBLE JEOPARDY avoided. It is submitted by the prosecution to the defendant, at the defendant's demand, to provide the facts alleged in the complaint or the indictment that related to the commission of the crime. In CRIMINAL LAW, a bill of particulars serves the same purpose. If, however, the information sought by such a motion is obtainable by use of discovery mechanisms, the motion will be denied. In federal courts the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have replaced the use of a bill of particulars with a motion for a more definite statement. State codes of CIVIL PROCEDURE impose rules that govern the use of bills of particulars in civil actions brought in state court. It is not to be used as a discovery device to learn the evidence or strategy to be used at trial by the opposing party. A bill of particulars is neither a PLEADING nor proof of the facts it states, but, rather, an elucidation of a pleading. ![]() In civil actions a bill of particulars is a written demand for the specifics of why. It also serves to expedite the orderly progress of judicial proceedings by reducing, if not eliminating, the need for the amendment of ambiguous or vague pleadings. A written statement used in both civil and criminal actions that is submitted by a plaintiff or a prosecutor at the request of a defendant, giving the defendant detailed information concerning the claims or charges made against him or her. Its function is to give the party who requests it knowledge of what the opposing party has alleged in order to protect the party requesting the bill from surprise and in order to establish the real issues of the action. A bill can be submitted either voluntarily or pursuant to a court order for compliance with the demand. Unlike a civil case, however, the prosecutor must agree to allow the motion to be heard. A pretrial motion to dismiss because the Commonwealth has insufficient evidence to prove its case is analogous to a motion for summary judgment in a civil case. Although usually requested by a defendant, it can be demanded by a plaintiff if the defendant makes a counterclaim for a setoff or asserts a defense against him or her. 20.5 (bill of particulars and 20.6D (striking surplusage). “Put plainly,” the judge wrote, “Richardson cannot bring a claim for copyright infringement of his sound recording based solely on the contention that the songs sound alike.”Īttorneys for both sides did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the decision.In civil actions a bill of particulars is a written demand for the specifics of why an action at law was brought. “Unfortunately for Richardson, in the Copyright Act, Congress established a very firm distinction.” “He created HPW as a teenager, registered a copyright on his own, and brought this action seeking to protect his rights in his original work of music, as provided under the Copyright Act,” the judge wrote. It likely won’t mean much in the wake of a failed lawsuit, but the judge said she had “great sympathy for Richardson’s situation.” But Judge Maldonado said the producer had “failed to do so.” With his more restricted rights, Richardson needed to provide evidence that French or someone else involved in “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’” directly copied his actual recording into the new song. The 10 Biggest Music Law Stories of 2023: #MeToo, AI, Ed Sheeran, Young Thug, Taylor Swift… 14 on Billboard’s Hot Rap Songs chart in August 2013. Richardson sued French in 2019, claiming the star and others stole core elements from “Hood Pushin’ Weight” – an instrumental track Richardson published in 2012 on the platform SoundClick – when they wrote “Ain’t Worried About Nothin’,” which reached No. ![]() “As it is, though, Richardson’s evidence in this particular case is insufficient to establish copyright infringement.” “If it is any consolation, imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and the Court hopes that Richardson will not be deterred in his musical endeavors, now armed with a better understanding of copyright law,” Judge Maldonado wrote. She included an unusual note at the end of the ruling, stressing that it was merely a “technical win” for French - and one that he “should not claim as a substantive victory.” And she repeatedly suggested that, had Richardson secured a more complete set of intellectual property rights, the outcome might have been different. ![]() Though she sided with French, Judge Maldonado was highly sympathetic to Richardson. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |