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. Piontek

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

June 18, 2019

United State of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Andrew Nathaniel David Piontek, Defendant.

          Jordan L. Sing and Melinda A. Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys, (for the Government); and

          Manvir K. Atwal, Assistant Federal Defender, (for Defendant).

          ORDER

          Tony N. Leung United States Magistrate Judge

         This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on the following motions filed by Defendant:

1. Motion for Discovery and Inspection (ECF No. 20);
2. Pretrial Motion for Disclosure of 404 Evidence (ECF No. 21);
3. Motion to Compel Attorney for the Government to Disclose Evidence Favorable to the Defendant (ECF No. 22);
4. Motion for Discovery of Expert Under Rule 16(a)(1)(G) (ECF No. 23); and
5. Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes and Evidence (ECF No. 24).

         The parties agreed to waive the hearing and have the Court decide these motions on the papers. (Gov't's Omnibus Resp. at 1, ECF No. 25; Def.'s Letter, ECF No. 26; see ECF No. 27.) Based upon the record and memoranda, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:

         1. Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection (ECF No. 20) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Defendant seeks discovery available under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16. The Government states that it “will comply with Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(A)-(F) and with Rules 702, 703, and 705 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, ” and objects to the extent that Defendant seeks discovery outside the scope of these rules. (Gov't's Omnibus Resp. at 1.) The Government further states that it “has provided discovery in the case to date and . . . understands its continuing obligations with respect to discovery.” (Gov't's Omnibus Resp. at 1.)

         To the extent that Defendant's motion seeks discovery that the Government has already produced, Defendant's motion is denied as moot. To the extent that any other responsive discovery to Defendant's motion remains in the Government's control and has not yet been produced, Defendant's motion is granted.

         Defendant also requests that, “[i]f prior to trial, the [G]overnment discovers additional evidence or material previously requested or ordered which is subject to discovery or inspection herein requested . . .” that the Government notify Defendant of such additional evidence or material. The Court has no reason to doubt that the Government will honor its continuing disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(c). Defendant's request, however, is granted, and any such evidence or material that comes into the Government's possession, knowledge, or control shall be produced in a timely fashion.

         2. Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Disclosure of 404 Evidence (ECF No. 21) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant requests the disclosure of “any ‘bad act' or ‘similar course of conduct' evidence [the Government] intends to offer at trial pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.” Defendant also requests that the Government “identify the basis for the evidence's admissibility and the witnesses through whom such evidence will be presented at trial.” Defendant requests that such evidence be disclosed both “immediately” and “no later than 21-days before ...


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.