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. Smialek

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 24, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Steven Walter Smialek (1), Defendant.

          Sarah E. Hudleston, Esq., United States Attorney's Office, counsel for Plaintiff.

          Douglas L. Micko, Esq., Office of the Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant Smialek.

          ORDER

          BECKY R. THORSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         This action came on for hearing before the Court on July 24, 2018, at the U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, St. Paul, MN 55101. Defendant Steven Walter Smialek presented various pretrial motions, and the Government presented a motion for discovery. Based on the file and documents contained herein, along with the memoranda and arguments of counsel, the Court makes the following Order:

         1. The Government's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 26.2.

         The Government seeks disclosure of documents and tangible objects, reports of examinations and tests, and a written summary of expert testimony pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b). The Government also seeks disclosure of any alibi by the Defendant pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.1, and all witness statements pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2. In addition, the Government seeks notice (by the pretrial-motions-hearing date) pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2, if Defendant intends to rely upon the defense of insanity or introduce expert testimony relating to a mental disease or defect or any other mental condition of the Defendant bearing on the issue of guilt. The Government also appears to seek notice pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.3, if Defendant intends to rely upon the defense of actual or believed exercise of public authority on behalf of a law enforcement agency or federal intelligence agency at the time of the offense. Defendant has filed no objection to the motion. Therefore, Defendant is hereby ordered to comply with the discovery and disclosure obligations under the aforementioned rules. The Government's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 26.2 (Doc. No. 19) is GRANTED.

         2. Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection.

         Defendant requests an order requiring the Government to produce all known statements made by Defendant that are within the Government's possession, custody or control, as well as a copy of his prior criminal record. Defendant also requests permission to inspect all material evidence and all reports of examinations and scientific tests within the Government's possession. The Government represents that it has complied with all of its discovery obligations under the Rules and that it will continue to comply. Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection (Doc. No. 28) is GRANTED to the extent that it conforms to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12, 16, and 26.2 and is not already moot.

         3. Defendant's Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Act Material.

         Defendant moves for an order requiring the Government's early compliance with the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, specifically requesting disclosure of Jencks Act material at least two weeks before trial. The Government objects to this motion on the grounds the Eighth Circuit has repeatedly held that the government cannot not be required to make pretrial disclosure of Jencks material. See, e.g., United States v. White, 750 F.2d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 1984). 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 Material (Doc. No. 29) is DENIED. Nothing in this Order, however, precludes the Government from voluntarily disclosing Jenks Act material as it has represented that it already has and would.

         4. Defendant's Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes.

         Defendant moves for an order requiring law enforcement agents, including any confidential reliable informants, to retain and preserve all rough notes taken as part of their investigation into this case. The Government agrees to instruct its agents to retain rough notes, but objects to an order concerning the disclosure of such rough notes. Defendant's Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes (Doc. No. 30) is GRANTED. However, disclosure of rough notes is not required by this Order.

         5. Defendant's Motion for Discovery of Expert Under Rule 16(a)(1)(G).

         Defendant seeks an order requiring the Government to disclose expert testimony and a written summary of all expert testimony the Government intends to use at trial. The Government represents that it will fully comply with Rule 16(a). The Government requests that the Court order that both parties make expert disclosures no later than two weeks before trial. Defendant's Motion for Discovery of Expert Under Rule 16(a)(1)(G) (Doc. No. 31) is GRANTED to the extent ...


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.