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. Krisnik

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 10, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
John Frederick Krisnik, Defendant.

          Katharine T. Buzicky, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for Plaintiff.

          Patrick L. Cotter, Esq., Sieben & Cotter, PLLC, counsel for Defendant.

          ORDER

          BECKY R. THORSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This action came on for hearing before the Court on July 9, 2018, at the U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN, 55101. The parties have filed various pretrial motions. Based on the file and documents contained therein, along with the memoranda and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following Order:

         1. Government's Motion for Discovery.

         The Government moves for discovery pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, and 26.2. Defendant does not oppose this motion. Therefore, the Government's Motion for Discovery (Doc. No. 11) is GRANTED.

         2. Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection.

         Defendant moves for discovery of statements made by the Defendant, documents and tangible objects, reports of examinations and tests, expert witnesses, Defendant's criminal record, and witness statements. The Government responds that it has complied with its discovery obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, and will continue to do so on an ongoing basis. On that understanding, Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED.

         3. Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Results and Reports of Computer Forensic Testing.

         Defendant moves for an Order directing the Government to disclose the results and reports of any computer forensic testing pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(F). The Government responds that it is aware of its obligations under Rule 16 and 18 U.S.C. § 3905(m), which applies to cases involving child pornography, that it has complied with its obligations in this case, and that it will continue to do so. On that understanding, Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Results and Reports of Computer Forensic Testing (Doc. No. 13) is GRANTED.

         4. Defendant's Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act Materials.

         Defendant moves for early disclosure of Jencks Act materials. The Government objects to any court-ordered disclosure of witness statements prior to the witness's testimony. See 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Because the Jencks Act plainly provides that “no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case, ” Defendant's Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act Materials (Doc. No. 14) is DENIED, with the understanding that the Government agrees to provide Jencks material one week before trial if the Defendant makes reciprocal disclosures.

         5. Defendant's Motion to Require Notice of Intention to Use Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Act Evidence.

         Defendant moves for an Order requiring the Government to give notice of its intent to use “other crimes, wrongs, or acts” evidence, as that phrase is used in Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The Government states that it is aware of its obligations under Rule 404(b) and intends to comply fully with those obligations. The Government requests that the order be narrowly drawn to make clear that Rule 404(b) does not encompass acts which are “intrinsic” to the charged offense. “‘Other act' evidence is ‘intrinsic' when the evidence of the other act and the evidence of the crime charged are ‘inextricably intertwined' or both acts are part of a ‘single criminal episode' or the other acts were ‘necessary preliminaries' to the crime charged.” United States v. Williams, 900 F.2d 823, 825 (5th Cir. 1990); see also United States v. Adediran, 26 F.3d 61, 63 (8th Cir. 1994) (“[W]here the other crime is so ...


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.