United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Katharine T. Buzicky, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney,
counsel for Plaintiff.
Patrick L. Cotter, Esq., Sieben & Cotter, PLLC, counsel
R. THORSON, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
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
Government's Motion for Discovery.
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.
Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection.
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)
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Results and Reports
of Computer Forensic Testing.
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.
Defendant's Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act
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
Defendant's Motion to Require Notice of Intention to Use
Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Act Evidence.
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