United States District Court, D. Minnesota
ORDER
ELIZABETH COWAN WRIGHT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
This
case is before the Court on the United States of
America's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. No. 10); and
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements (Dkt. No. 30),
Defendant's Motion to Suppress Items Obtained by
Warrantless Seizure (Dkt. No. 31), Defendant's Motion for
Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to the Defendant (Dkt. No.
32), Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury
Transcripts (Dkt. No. 33), Defendant's Motion for
Pretrial Disclosure of Jencks Act Material (Dkt. No. 34),
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of 404 Evidence (Dkt.
No. 35), Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Wiretaps
and Other Electronic Surveillance (Dkt. No. 36),
Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection (Dkt. No.
37), and Defendant's Motion to Retain Rough Notes (Dkt.
No. 38).
Benjamin
Bejar and Thomas Calhoun-Lopez, Assistant U.S. Attorneys,
appeared on behalf of the United States of America and F.
Clayton Tyler appeared on behalf of Defendant Marcus Anthony
Mattox, who was present at the January 25, 2019 hearing on
the instant motions.
Based
on the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS
ORDERED THAT:
1.
United States of America's Motion for Discovery (Dkt. No.
10) is GRANTED.
2.
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Evidence Favorable
to the Defendant (Dkt. No. 32) is DENIED AS
MOOT based on the representations of the parties at
the hearing on the pretrial motions.
3.
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury
Transcripts (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED IN PART AND
DENIED IN PART. According to the United States
Supreme Court, there is a “long established policy that
maintains the secrecy of the grand jury proceedings in the
federal courts.” United States v. Proctor &
Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 681 (1958) (citations
omitted). A defendant must allege a “particularized
need” with support for the records. See United
States v. Warren, 16 F.3d 247, 253 (8th Cir. 1994)
(citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e)(3)(C)(ii)). For example, a
court may authorize disclosure of grand jury transcripts
where a defendant “shows that a ground may exist to
dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred
before the grand jury. . . .” Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(e)(3)(E)(ii). A bare allegation that grand jury records are
necessary does not satisfy “particularized need”
requirement. See Warren, 16 F.3d at 253. Defendant
has made no showing of a particularized need for the grand
jury transcripts. However, the Government will produce any
grand jury transcripts for any witness it intends to call at
trial. The Government has represented that it will
voluntarily produce any such transcripts within three (3)
working days before commencement of trial with its voluntary
production of Jencks Act material.
4.
Defendant's Motion for Pretrial Disclosure of Jencks Act
Material (Dkt. No. 34) is DENIED. Defendant
requests disclosure of Jencks Act material at least seven
days before trial. 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.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Eighth Circuit
has repeatedly held that the government cannot not be
required to make pretrial disclosure of Jencks Act
material. See, e.g., United States v.
White, 750 F.2d 726, 729 (8th Cir. 1984). Nothing in
this Order, however, precludes the Government from
voluntarily disclosing any Jencks Act material three (3)
working days before commencement of trial, as it represented
it would at the hearing.
5.
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of 404 Evidence (Dkt.
No. 35) is DENIED AS MOOT based on the
representations of the parties at the hearing on the pretrial
motions. The Government shall produce Rule 404(b) evidence in
a manner consistent with its Response to Defendant's
Pretrial Motions (Dkt. No. 42) at least fourteen (14) days
before commencement of trial.
6.
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Wiretaps and Other
Electronic Surveillance (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED AS
MOOT based on the representations of the parties at
the hearing on the pretrial motions.
7.
Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection (Dkt. No.
37) is DENIED AS MOOT based on the
representations of the parties at the hearing on the pretrial
motions.
8.
Defendants' Motion to Retain Rough Notes (Dkt. No. 38) is
TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT. The parties shall
submit briefing to the Court regarding whether Defendant is
entitled to the production of law enforcement officers'
rough notes, including whether Defendant's request for
production of such notes is timely, at the same time they
submit their respective briefing on the motions to suppress
as set forth below in paragraph 9 of this Order. This motion
will be addressed in a separate Order to issue.
9. With
respect to Defendant's Motion to Suppress Statements
(Dkt. No. 30) and Defendant's Motion to Suppress Items
Obtained by Warrantless Seizure (Dkt. No. 31), the parties
requested that supplemental briefing be due following the
filing of a transcript by the court reporter of the motions
hearing. Defendant's supplemental brief will be due on or
before February 22, 2019. The
Government's supplemental brief in opposition to
Defendant's motions will be due on ...