United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Katherine Menendez United States Magistrate Judge
matter is before the Court on the parties' pretrial
motions for discovery, disclosure, and other non-dispositive
issues. The Court held a hearing on the motions on August 21,
2019 and heard from counsel for the government and Mr. Reese.
Based on the motions, the written responses, and the oral
argument, the Court enters the following Order.
The Government's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 26.2
[ECF No. 19] is GRANTED. Mr. Reese
shall provide discovery and make the disclosures as required
by the applicable Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Pretrial Disclosure of
Rule 404 Evidence [ECF No. 20]
GRANTED. The government shall provide the
notice required by Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) no
later than three weeks prior to trial.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Early Disclosure of
Jencks Act Material [ECF No. 21] is
DENIED. Nothing in this Order prohibits the
government from disclosing material covered by the Jencks Act
in advance of trial to avoid unnecessary delays, and the
Court notes that the government states that it has previously
disclosed all witness statements and reports to Mr. Reese in
the interest of resolving the case. Moreover, the government
has agreed to provide any additional Jencks Act material no
later than three days before trial, if Mr. Reese provides
reciprocal disclosures at the same time.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for or Disclosure of Grand
Jury Minutes and Transcript [ECF No. 22] is
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN
PART. Mr. Reese has not demonstrated the
“particularized need” required to support early
disclosure of grand jury transcripts because he has made only
a “bare allegation” that grand jury records are
necessary. United States v. Mattox, No. 18-cr-263
(DWF/ECW), 2019 WL 337611, at *1 (D. Minn. Jan. 28, 2019)
(citing United States v. Warren, 16 F.3d 247, 253
(8th Cir. 1994)). However, the government indicates that if
the case agent is called to testify, it will produce a
transcript of the case agent's testimony in accordance
with the agreement regarding Jencks Act material.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for List of Government
Witnesses [ECF No. 23] is DENIED as
premature. The timing of disclosures of witness lists is more
appropriately handled in a pretrial order issued by the
Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Giglio Material [ECF
No. 24], Motion for Brady Material [ECF No. 27], and
Pretrial Motion for Disclosure of Impeaching
Information [ECF No. 29] are
GRANTED. Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States,
405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny impose a continuing
obligation on the government to make certain information
available to the defense prior to trial. The government does
not object to Mr. Reese's motions.
Defendant's Motion for Discovery of Rule
16(A)(1)(G) Evidence - Experts [ECF No. 25] is
GRANTED. Mr. Reese requests an Order
requiring a written summary of all expert testimony the
government intends to offer during its case in chief, a
description of expert witness opinions, and a record of the
witnesses' qualifications. In response, the government
states that it has complied with its discovery obligations
under Rule 16 and will continue to do so, but it has not yet
determined whether and which expert witnesses it will call at
trial. The government also notes that Mr. Reese has filed a
Rule 12.2(a) notice of insanity defense, but a pre-hearing
conference indicates that Mr. Reese has not yet been
evaluated by a medical professional regarding the insanity
defense in this case. The government asks the Court to issue
a scheduling order specific to the insanity defense, and it
requests that the results of a December 11, 2018 evaluation
of Mr. Reese in another matter pending in this District
(United States v. Dontay Reese, No. 18-cr-42) be
made a part of the record in this case.
hearing, the government advised the Court that the December
11, 2018 evaluation from No. 18-cr-42 was prepared at the
request of Mr. Reese's prior defense counsel, Robert
Richman, but was not ultimately disclosed. Given concerns
about the possible privileged or work-product protected
status of the December 11th evaluation, the Court will not
rule on the government's request without additional
briefing on this issue.
addition, the hearing also revealed that the Bureau of
Prisons completed a competency evaluation in No. 18-cr-42 in
June of 2018, and the Court required the government to
disclose that evaluation to Mr. Reese's defense counsel
in this matter. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
THAT the government shall provide a copy of the June
2018 Bureau of Prisons evaluation prepared in No. 18-cr-42.
Further, the Court instructed the government to file a
written motion to have Mr. Reese evaluated.
Reese shall provide expert disclosures, including any
disclosure related to the insanity defense, at least
three weeks prior to trial.
Defendant's Pretrial Motion for Discovery and Inspection
[ECF No. 26] is GRANTED. The
government asserts no objection to providing discovery to ...