Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Robinson

United States District Court, W.D. Arkansas, Texarkana Division

August 30, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
v.
LADARRIUS ROBINSON DEFENDANT

          ORDER

          HARRY F. BARNES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         Before the Court is Defendant's Brady Motion to Compel Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence. ECF No. 122. The Government has responded. ECF No. 126. Defendant has replied. ECF No. 129. The Court finds this matter ripe for consideration.

         DISCUSSION

         In the instant motion, Defendant moves the Court to order the Government to produce forms of exculpatory and impeachment materials the Government may possess. The Government has responded, asserting that it has disclosed all materials it is obligated to produce at this time.[1]Defendant has filed a reply, asserting that he is entitled to the requested materials. Upon review of the filings, the points of contention appear to concern (1) the time table for disclosure of certain potential Brady[2] material, (2) whether the Government should be compelled to disclose impeachment material immediately, and (3) whether Defendant has carried his burden of establishing that he is entitled to disclosure of the identities and whereabouts of confidential informants the Government has utilized. The Court will address each issue in turn.

         I. Timeline for Disclosure of Brady Material Under the Jencks Act

         Defendant requests disclosure of exculpatory information related to any written statements, transcripts, recordings, summaries, or notes of oral statements given by any person that the Government has interviewed in connection with this case, including confidential informants.

         In response to the instant motion, the Government asserts that to the extent Defendant requests evidence that qualifies as both statements of a prospective witness under the Jencks Act and Brady material, the Jencks Act governs the timing[3] of such disclosures. ECF No. 126, pp. 1-2 (citing United States v. Bencs, 28 F.3d 555, 561 (2d Cir. 1994), which stated that “[w]hen Brady material sought by a defendant is covered by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, the terms of that Act govern the timing of the government's disclosure.”). In his reply, Defendant asserts his belief that the Government is withholding Brady material. However, Defendant concedes that the Jencks Act governs the timing “of the government disclosures regarding information related to any written statements, transcripts, recordings, summaries, or notes of oral statements given by any person that the government has interviewed in connection with this case, including confidential informants.” ECF No. 129, pp. 1-2. That being said, Defendant argues that “it has been noted” that “due process requires that the government's Brady obligation trumps the statutory time table set forth in [the Jencks Act] to the extent a temporal conflict is found to exist.” ECF No. 129, p. 2 (quoting United States v. Avellino, 129 F.Supp.2d 214, 218 (E.D.N.Y. 2001)). Accordingly, Defendant takes the position that the Government's Brady obligations “trump” the Jencks Act timing provisions and that the Court should order the immediate disclosure of the requested information.

         As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant offers nothing by way of argument or evidence to support his contention that the Government is withholding Brady material. As such, the Court need not discuss the issue any further except to remind the Government of its continuing responsibilities under Brady and its progeny.

         Furthermore, the Court finds it unnecessary to attempt to resolve the perceived tension between the parties' cited authorities. Under Eighth Circuit precedent, “Brady does not require pretrial disclosure, and due process is satisfied if the information is furnished before it is too late for the defendant to use it at trial.”[4] United States v. Almendares, 397 F.3d 653, 664 (8th Cir. 2005). Defendant-the moving party-does not explain why applying the Jencks Act timing provisions would constitute a Brady violation, nor does he otherwise explain how allowing the Government to disclose information pursuant to the timing provisions of the Jencks Act will result in the information being provided “too late” for him to use.

         Accordingly, upon consideration, the Court finds Defendant's argument on this issue unpersuasive.

         II. Impeachment Material

         Defendant seeks disclosure of impeachment material regarding the Government's intended witnesses and any potential witnesses.

         In regard to impeachment material, the Government acknowledges its disclosure responsibilities under Brady and Giglio[5] “to inform the Defendant of any promises of immunity, leniency, or other favorable treatment made to witnesses who testify, ” but argues that Defendant does not cite any authority to support the proposition that the Government must also disclose such information pertaining to individuals who will not testify. ECF No. 126, p. 2. The Government further argues that, in regard to witnesses the Government will call to testify, such impeachment information is not discoverable before trial. The Government notes that Defendant is entitled to the requested impeachment information for use on cross-examination and states that it will be provided to Defendant prior to cross-examination of any witness. The Government further notes its practice of providing the requested materials two days before the start of trial. Finally, the Government states that, at this time, it has not determined which witnesses it intends to call at trial.

         In his reply, Defendant concedes that the Government is not required to provide impeachment information prior to trial but asserts that such information must be disclosed before it is too late for Defendant to use the information. Defendant further asserts that Eighth Circuit precedent “does not condone” the Government “waiting three ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.