United States District Court, D. Minnesota
BENJAMIN BEJAR, ESQ., ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF.
DOUGLAS OLSON, ESQ., OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL DEFENDER, COUNSEL
R. THORSON UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
action came on for hearing before the Court on July 1, 2019,
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.
23) is GRANTED.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Disclosure of 404(b)
moves the Court for an Order directing the Government to
disclose any “bad act” or “similar course
of conduct” evidence it intends to offer at trial
pursuant to Rule 404 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The
Government responds that it is aware of its obligations under
Rule 404(b) and will comply with those obligations if it
intends to introduce any such evidence at trial. The
Government represents that it will provide notice and
disclose any extrinsic 404(b) evidence that it intends to use
at trial no later than fourteen days before trial. The
Government also 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
‘inextricably intertwined' with the charged crime .
. . Rule 404(b) is not implicated, . . .”). Subject to
these conditions, Defendant's Pretrial Motion for
Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence (Doc. No. 25)
is GRANTED. The Government shall provide
notice and disclose any extrinsic 404(b) evidence that it
intends to use at trial no later than fourteen days before
Defendant's Motion to Compel Attorney for the Government
to Disclose Evidence Favorable to the Defendant.
moves the Court for an Order compelling disclosure of any
evidence in the possession of the prosecution or any of its
agents, or other evidence the existence of which is known, or
by the exercise of due diligence may become known to the
prosecution, which may be favorable to the Defendant or could
reasonably weaken or affect any evidence that may be
introduced against the Defendant or is otherwise relevant to
the subject matter of this case and may in any manner aid
Defendant in the investigation or preparation of the case for
trial or sentencing. The Government responds that it is aware
of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972), and their progeny, and that such evidence will be or
already has been disclosed. Therefore, Defendant's Motion
to Compel Attorney for the Government to Disclose Evidence
Favorable to the Defendant (Doc. No. 26) is
Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection.
moves for discovery and inspection; the Government responds
that it has provided extensive discovery in the case to date
and understands its continuing obligations with respect to
discovery under the applicable rules, including Fed. R. Crim.
P. 16(a)(1)(A)-(F). On that understanding, Defendant's
Motion for Discovery and Inspection (Doc. No.
27) is GRANTED.
Defendant's Motion for Discovery and Inspection of
Products and Records of Electronic Surveillance.
seeks disclosure of electronic surveillance, including either
wiretapping and interceptions of telephone conversations, or
any form of surveillance by radio transmissions or
receptions, or any other form of electronic surveillance or
detection used by the Government in any phase of its
investigation of the Defendant. In response to this motion,
the Government reiterates its response to the previous
motion-- that it has provided extensive discovery in the case
to date and understands its continuing obligations with
respect to discovery under the applicable
rules. To the extent that such materials
exist, the Government states that it has disclosed all such
materials in compliance with Rule 16, including surveillance
videos, records jail calls, and cell phone tracking warrants,
and it will make available the tracking ...