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. Moman

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

April 20, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jaquon Keshawn Moman (2), Defendant.

          David Steinkamp, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Plaintiff.

          David Izek, Esq., Altman & Izek, Minneapolis, Minnesota for Defendant.

          ORDER

          STEVEN E. RAU, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The above-captioned case comes before the undersigned on Plaintiff the United States of America's (the “Government”) Motion for Discovery [Doc. No. 49] and Defendant Jaquon Keshawn Moman's (“Moman”) pre-trial motions [Doc. Nos. 44, 45, 46]. Of these pre-trial motions, only Moman's Motion to Disclose and Make Informant Available for Interview (“Motion to Disclose”) [Doc. No. 46] received supplemental briefing. See (Gov't's Suppl. Resp. to Def.'s Pre-Trial Mots., “Gov't's Suppl. Resp.”) [Doc. No. 63]. The Court specifically addresses Moman's Motion to Disclose below before providing its ruling on each of the pre-trial motions before it.

         I. FACTS

         Moman stands accused of two counts of “[i]nterference with [c]ommerce by [r]obbery” and one count of “[u]sing, [c]arrying, [b]randishing and [d]ischarging a [f]irearm.” See (Superseding Indictment) [Doc. No. 28]. In particular, Moman allegedly

unlawfully and knowingly [took] and obtain[ed] cash which was property of Metro PCS, located in Minneapolis, Minnesota, a commercial business then engaged in and affecting interstate commerce, in the presence of a victim employee, against the employee's will by means of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of injury, immediate and future, to the employee's person . . .
. . . .
[And] unlawfully and knowingly attempt[ed] to take and obtain cash and merchandise which was the property of Verizon Wireless, located in Inver Grove Heights, Minnesota, a commercial business then engaged in and affecting interstate commerce, in the presence of a victim employee, against the employee's will by means of actual and threatened force, violence, and fear of injury, immediate and future, to the employee's person . . . .

(Id. at 1-2). It was during the second attempted robbery of the Verizon Wireless store where Moman allegedly “knowingly and unlawfully use[d], carr[ied], brandish[ed] and discharge[d] a firearm.” (Id. at 2-3).

         After the incidents, “surveillance camera footage from the robbery of [the] Inver Grove Heights Verizon store . . . was played by a local news station.” (Gov't's Suppl. Resp. at 1). A member of the community called local authorities and identified Moman as one of the individuals in the footage. (Id.). This tip “led police to focus on the Defendant as a possible suspect.” (Id.).

         II. DISCUSSION

         Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Moman requests the disclosure of the individual that contacted local authorities, including that individual's “criminal record, if any.” (Mot. to Disclose). Initially, the Government asserted that it “is unaware of the use of an informant regarding this matter. The government requests the Defendant's motion be denied as moot.” (Gov't's Omnibus Resp. to Def.'s Pre-Trial Mots., “Omnibus Resp.”) [Doc. No. 54 at 2]. At the motions hearing before the undersigned, the Government clarified its position and requested it be allowed to submit supplemental briefing on the issue of whether the identity of the individual should be disclosed. In its supplemental brief, the Government asserts

[t]he only informant the government is aware of that was involved in the investigation of the Defendant is that of a tipster, who called police after surveillance camera footage from the robbery of an Inver Grove Heights Verizon store . . . was played by a local news station. The tipster identified Moman as one of the robbers, which led police to focus on the Defendant as a possible suspect. The tipster was not a material witness to the crimes charged in ...

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.