NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Court will hold a hearing on Julie Hiatt Steele’s Motion For a Bill of Particulars, Steele Pretrial Motion No. 8, Friday, February 26, 1999 at 9:00 a.m.

DATED: February 16, 1999

Julie Hiatt Steele, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Court order a Bill of Particulars to be provided by the government. Ms. Steele requires a Bill of Particulars because in a number of respects, the January 7, 1999 indictment does not provide Ms. Steele with the information necessary to prepare her defense. The requisite information is set forth in Ms. Steele's accompanying Memorandum of Law.

In support of her Motion, Ms. Steele relies on the accompanying Memorandum of Law.

WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth in the attached memorandum of law, Ms. Steele respectfully requests that the Court order the provision of a Bill of Particulars.

DATED: February 16, 1999

Julie Hiatt Steele, through undersigned counsel, respectfully requests that the Court order the provision of a Bill of Particulars pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f). Provision of a Bill of Particulars is required in this matter because the indictment does not provide Ms. Steele with the appropriate information necessary to prepare her defense. In support of her Motion, Ms. Steele states as follows:

Under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 7(f), it is in the Court's sound discretion to order the provision of a bill of particulars. The purpose of a bill of particulars is to "fairly apprise the defendant of the charges against him so that he may adequately prepare a defense and avoid surprise at trial. . . ." United States v. Fletcher, 74 F.3d 49, 53 (4^th Cir. 1996). A bill of particulars amplifies the indictment by providing missing or additional information necessary for effective preparation for trial. Id.

A bill of particulars is particularly appropriate where, although the indictment contains general allegations necessary to plead the charged counts, it does not provide specifics as to the indictment's charges. See United States v. Loayza, 107 F.3d 257, 261 (4^th Cir. 1997)(a bill of particulars "is available to add specifics beyond those required for the indictment to pass constitutional muster.") In such cases, provision of detailed information must be made by the government, especially when that information is crucial to the creation of a defense against the charges. Id.

The indictment in this case fails to provide Ms. Steele with the information necessary to prepare her defense in a number of crucial respects. Ms. Steele has attempted to informally receive this information from the Office of Independent Counsel ("OIC"). While it received answers to some of its requests, the government either refused to provide answers or provided unsatisfactory answers to the requests set forth below.

The indictment fails to provide Ms. Steele the appropriate level of detail to prepare an adequate defense in the following respects:

General Allegations:

1. Paragraph 8 fails to allege the names of the persons Kathleen Willey told of the alleged November 1993 sexual advances by President Clinton, the circumstances or contents of these communications, or Willey's version of the alleged communications. Paragraph 8 further fails to identify the circumstances and contents of Willey's alleged communications of her alleged communications to Ms. Steele regarding the alleged November 1993 sexual advances by President Clinton.

2. Paragraph 9 fails to allege the identity of the persons Ms. Steele allegedly told about Kathleen Willey's alleged account of the alleged November 1993 sexual advances, nor the circumstances or contents of those communications.

3. Paragraph 19 fails to specify the alleged false statements in Ms. Steele's affidavit other than those set forth in Paragraph 19. In addition, Paragraph 19 fails to specify the circumstances or content of when Kathleen Willey allegedly told Julie Hiatt Steele about the alleged "sexual encounter," including the "several additional times" referenced. Paragraph 19 also fails to identify the persons to whom Ms. Steele allegedly described the alleged sexual advance, or the circumstances or content of those alleged conversations.

4. Paragraphs 20-23 fail to specify Ms. Steele's alleged knowledge, if any, of the OIC's investigation and its use of grand juries in the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia, or the times and circumstances of her acquiring that knowledge.

5. Paragraph 27 fails to specify all allegedly false or misleading testimony provided by Julie Hiatt Steele on June 11, 1998, other than the allegations contained in Paragraph 27. Paragraph 27 also fails to identify the circumstances or content of the statements allegedly made by Ms. Steele to John Doe # 1.

6. Paragraph 31 fails to specify any and all "materially false and misleading testimony" allegedly provided by Julie Hiatt Steele to the grand jury on August 18, 1998, other than the allegations contained in Paragraph 31.

7. Paragraph 32 fails to specify the contents or circumstances of Julie Hiatt Steele's alleged attempt to persuade John Doe #1 that he did not correctly remember the substance of his conversations with Julie Hiatt Steele.

8. Paragraph 33 fails to specify the contents or circumstances of Julie Hiatt Steele's alleged attempt to persuade Jane Doe #1 that they never discussed Kathleen Willey's account of the alleged sexual advance.

Count One:

9. Paragraph 35 fails to specify how the referenced alleged conduct influenced, obstructed and impeded the due administration of justice.

Count Two:

10. Paragraph 39 fails to specify how the referenced alleged conduct influenced, obstructed and impeded the due administration of justice.

11. Paragraph 42 fails to specify how the referenced alleged conduct influenced, obstructed and impeded the due administration of justice.

12. Paragraph 45 fails to specify the precise words allegedly used by Julie Hiatt Steele.

Provision of the above-described information is necessary for Ms. Steele to adequately prepare her defense. As is clear from the indictment, the charges against Ms. Steele concern specific statements and conversations with those persons set forth in the indictment. The circumstances and content of these conversation are not only essential to proving the criminal conduct; they are the criminal conduct itself. Ms. Steele needs to know the circumstances and contents of these conversations in order to truly understand the charges against her, and to adequately prepare a defense to the charges.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, the Court should order the filing of a Bill of Particulars to provide Ms. Steele with the specific information necessary to her defense as set forth above.

DATED: February 16, 1999

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Notice of Hearing, Motion For a Bill of Particulars (Steele Pretrial Motion No. 8), and Memorandum of Law in Support thereof was served, via hand-delivery, on this 16th day of February, 1999, on the following:

Andrew L. Hurst

Upon consideration of Ms. Steele's Motion For a Bill of Particulars, it is this _______ day of _____________, 1999, hereby

ORDERED that Ms. Steele's Motion is hereby GRANTED, and it is further

ORDERED that the Office of Independent Counsel will file a Bill of Particulars within ten (10) days of the entry of this Order providing the information sought by the above- described Motion.

____________________________

Hon.

United States District Court

Judge