United States District Court, D. Minnesota
N. ERICKSEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Deuvontay Charles, proceeding pro se, filed four
motions on October 31, 2016: Motion to Have a Pre-Trial
Interview with Victims and Witnesses [Dkt. No. 67]; Motion
for Immediate Production of All Discovery and Jencks Material
with Any Brady Material to the Defendant [Dkt. No.
68]; Motion to Waive Prosecution's Objections of the
Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. No.
69]; and Motion to Dismiss Indictment Due to Speedy Trial
Violation and Not to Exclude Time from Continuance Under
Speedy Trial Act [Dkt. No. 70].
Court has carefully considered the submissions. In addition
to the reasoning provided below, the Court makes the
following findings with regard to Charles's Speedy Trial
Act motion, in which he argues that the time limitations
imposed by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161
et seq., were violated and that the indictment must
therefore be dismissed. He concedes that some time was
properly excluded in calculating the trial deadline, but
challenges the exclusion of time related to the Court's
continuance of the trial date at Charles's counsel's
request. Charles explains that he opposed counsel's
motion for a continuance because he was concerned that
several witnesses he wanted to call at trial would not be
available at a later trial date. He asserts that he also
expressed at that time a desire to proceed pro se.
After considering the factors mandated by 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7)(A), the Court granted counsel's request to
continue the trial to December to allow counsel adequate time
to prepare in light of what counsel deemed to be voluminous
discovery and the complexity of the case. See Dkt.
Nos. 58, 59. Charles's opposition to his counsel's
decision to move for the continuance does not prevent the
time from being excluded pursuant to § 3161(h).
United States v. Herbst, 666 F.3d 504, 510 (8th Cir.
2012); see also United States v. Wetsch, No.
12-cr-45 (SRN/JJG), 2013 WL 1856829, at *9 (D. Minn. May 2,
2013). That Charles later, after the Court conducted an
inquiry pursuant to Faretta v. California, 422 U.S.
806 (1975), began to proceed pro se does not change
this determination. E.g., Wetsch, 2013 WL
1856829, at *9. Charles does not identify any other reason to
dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act,
and he has the burden of proof. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).
The Court has nonetheless reviewed its speedy trial
calculations and is satisfied that the trial date of December
7, 2016 is timely under the Act.
on the files, records, and proceedings in this action, and
for the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
Motion to Have a Pre-Trial Interview with Victims and
Witnesses [Dkt. No. 67] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN
PART. To the extent that any witnesses are under the
exclusive control of the Government, the Government shall
make those witnesses available to be interviewed, should they
consent to being interviewed, as soon as practicable. See
United States v. Bittner, 728 F.2d 1038, 1041-42 (8th
Cir. 1984); United States v. Long, 449 F.2d 288, 295
(8th Cir. 1971). The Motion is denied in all other respects.
Motion for Immediate Production of All Discovery and Jencks
Material with Any Brady Material to the Defendant
[Dkt. No. 68] is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The
Government shall produce discovery to Defendant in a redacted
form consistent with the terms of the Protective Order in
this case. Defendant's request for Jencks Act disclosures
is denied as unripe for determination. Disclosures pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 are required only after a witness
has testified on direct examination at trial. E.g.,
United States v. White, 750 F.2d 726, 729 (8th Cir.
1984). The motion in all other respects is denied without
prejudice. If Defendant intends to file a discovery motion
pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12, he is
required to first confer with the Government and
“attempt in good faith to clarify and narrow the issues
in dispute.” D. Minn. L.R. 12.1(b). Moreover, the
deadline for filing a Rule 12 motion was June 3, 2016, and it
would be Defendant's burden to show good cause for the
Court to consider any untimely motion. Fed. R. Crim. P.
Motion to Waive Prosecution's Objections of the Report
and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge [Dkt. No. 69] is
DENIED AS MOOT. The Court already ruled on the parties'
objections to the August 11, 2016 Report and Recommendation.
Dkt. No. 65.
Motion to Dismiss Indictment Due to Speedy Trial Violation
and Not to Exclude Time from Continuance Under Speedy Trial
Act [Dkt. No. 70] is DENIED.
 Charles has not identified any
particular witnesses and does not state definitively whether
or not the unnamed witnesses will be available in December.
As stated at the October 3, 2016 status conference, Charles
may seek subpoenas ...