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 of America v. Mark Edward Wetsch

April 11, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARK EDWARD WETSCH, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Susan Richard Nelson, United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the undersigned United States District Judge for consideration of various motions filed by Defendant. Defendant filed the following eight motions: "Second Motion Informing the Judiciary of Government's Failure to Serve Documents and Comply with Disclosing Discovery" [Doc. No. 303]; Motion Compelling the Government to Disclose "Governmental Iniquities" [Doc. No. 319]; "Defendant's Second Motion Requesting Correction of Exhibit List" [Doc. No. 320]; Motion to be Provided with a Notebook Computer in Order to Create Charts and Summaries [Doc. No. 321]; Motion Compelling Disclosure of April 16, 2012 Resolution [Doc. No. 322]; Motion in Opposition to the Government's Dilatory Request Requesting a Word Enlargement [Doc. No. 323]; Motion Compelling the Government to Disclose Additive Discovery [Doc. No. 333]; and Motion Compelling the Government to Disclose Additive Discovery [Doc. No. 334].*fn1 As discussed further below, with the exception of the motions to compel the disclosure of discovery, each motion is denied; the motions to compel the disclosure of discovery are granted.

I."Second Motion Informing the Judiciary of Government's Failure to Serve Documents and Comply with Disclosing Discovery"

This motion is identical to Defendant's first motion informing the Court of the Government's alleged failure to serve documents. (Compare [Doc. No. 299] with [Doc. No. 303].) The Court addressed Defendant's first motion by requiring the Government to cure its allegedly deficient service and file an affidavit advising the Court of its compliance. On March 20, 2013, the Government filed the Affidavit of Nichol Berg, in which Berg averred that she re-served the documents about which Defendant complained. (Aff. of Nichol Berg, Mar. 20, 2013 [Doc. No. 307].) Accordingly, Defendant's motion is denied as moot.

II.Motion Compelling the Government to Disclose "Governmental Iniquities"

Here, Defendant asks the Court to compel the United States Attorney's Office ("USAO") to produce information related to: misconduct by Assistant United States Attorneys "under the tutelage of [United States Attorney B. Todd] Jones"; instances in which Mr. Jones or "any of his underlings have compromised the judicial system as affirmed by the United States District of MN, District or Magistrate Judges"; substantiated claims of FBI agents submitting false, perjured, or incomplete reports to the USAO since Mr. Jones has been the United States Attorney; and cases in which the Federal Defender has been replaced due to claims of ineffective representation. (Mot. Compel Gov't Disclose Gov't Iniquities at 5-6 [Doc. No. 319] (emphases in original).)

Defendant includes multiple pages of irrelevant information, including the fact that he is married to two women, he is a "known sympathizer of al-Shabaab," and a comparison of Minnesota's recent legalization of limited wolf hunting with al-Shabaab's defending itself from "Ethiopian wolves." (Id. at 4 (emphases in original).) Regardless, Defendant's request essentially seeks information that impeaches the character of Mr. Jones, the USAO generally, the Court, the Federal Defender's Office, and the FBI. Defendant relies on Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that the information is material to the preparation of his defense. The Court disagrees. Defendant has not demonstrated the information's materiality with regard to mounting a defense against the charges. Because the information Defendant seeks is not material, this motion is denied.

III."Defendant's Second Motion Requesting Correction of Exhibit List"

In this motion, Defendant seeks to correct a typographical error in an exhibit list that incorrectly designated a warrant as having been issued in Dakota County, Minnesota, instead of Hennepin County, Minnesota. The actual exhibit is clearly marked "Hennepin County," thus there is no possibility of confusion. This motion is denied.

IV.Motion to be Provided with a Notebook Computer in Order to Create Charts and Summaries

Defendant asks the Court provide him with a notebook computer to assist in the creation of a visual presentation for use at trial. Defendant relies on the "Bounds right to access" and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. (Mot. Regarding Notebook Computer at 1-2 [Doc. No. 321].) Defendant currently has access to a computer at Sherburne County Jail. Defendant is free to create any type of visual he chooses on that computer. At the time for trial, standby counsel will assist in moving the presentations to a computer for presentation at trial. Accordingly, Defendant's motion to be provided with a notebook computer is denied.

V.Motion to Compel Disclosure of April 16, 2012 Resolution

In April 2012, the Government and counsel for Defendant advised the Court that a resolution had been reached, withdrew their pending pretrial motions, and asked the Court to set a change of plea hearing. Defendant, through counsel, later indicated he did not wish to plead guilty and withdrew his request for a change of plea. Defendant now asks the Court to compel the USAO and Federal Defender to disclose a written copy of the resolution that gave rise to the parties' request to schedule a change of plea hearing. Defendant asserts disclosure is necessary because the "resolution" is material to the preparation of his defense and he intends to offer evidence of the resolution during his anticipated jury trial.

Defendant seeks the information in an effort to "establish Government iniquity and other forms of prosecutorial misconduct." (Mot. Compel Disclosure of April 16, 2012 Resolution at 3 [Doc. No. 322].) Prosecutorial misconduct is irrelevant to the preparation of his defense because such evidence is not admissible at trial. Defendant will not be allowed to introduce allegations of misconduct on the part of the Government, his former counsel, or the Court. ...


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.