U.S. v. Cadet, 82-1631
Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) |
Citation | 727 F.2d 1453 |
Docket Number | No. 82-1631,82-1631 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Raymond J. CADET, Barry Saffaie, Tabassom Ayazi, Defendants-Appellees. |
Decision Date | 02 July 1984 |
Sanford Svetcov, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lawrence A. Callaghan, Goldstein & Phillips, San Francisco, Cal., Daniel Cook, San Jose, Cal., Paul B. Meltzer, Santa Cruz, Cal., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before ALARCON, CANBY, and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges.
I.
The government has appealed from the judgment dismissing a four-count indictment against Raymond J. Cadet (Cadet), Barry Saffaie (Saffaie), and Tabassom Ayazi (Ayazi) with prejudice.
We must decide whether the district court erred in dismissing this matter because of the government's good faith refusal to obey certain provisions of the court's discovery order. We have concluded that it
was improper to dismiss the indictment since significant portions of the order were invalid.
II.
An indictment was returned by the grand jury on June 30, 1982, charging Cadet, Saffaie, and Ayazi with transporting, receiving, and selling documents allegedly stolen from International Business Machines Corporation (IBM).
On July 9, 1982, the court ordered that the defendants' pretrial motions be filed by July 30, 1982. The government was ordered to file its response to such motions by August 6, 1982. Counsel for Saffaie asked the court to set a trial date outside the "statutory 70-day period because of the complexity of the case" and to schedule the hearing motions "sometime in either October or November." The court was advised by Saffaie's attorney that the government had no objection. The court denied this request and set the matter for trial within the statutory time after stating that the alleged complexity of the case did not constitute good cause for the suggested delay. The court ordered that all pretrial motions be heard on August 13, 1982. September 7, 1982 was scheduled as the date for trial by jury.
On July 30, 1982, Saffaie and Ayazi filed a joint motion for discovery and requested that a hearing be conducted on August 13, 1983. Cadet filed a separate discovery motion requesting a hearing on the same date.
On July 30, 1982, counsel for Saffaie and Ayazi also filed a motion to dismiss the charges against them with prejudice "due to the government's failure to comply with formal and informal requests for discovery pursuant to Rules 12(d)(2) and 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure."
On August 6, 1982, the government filed its response to these motions.
III.
Hearing on the discovery motions was held on August 13, 1982.
The court granted Cadet's request for discovery as to the following material described in his motion filed July 30, 1982.
IV.
The court ordered the prosecution to comply with the following requests for discovery which were set forth in the motion filed by Saffaie and Ayazi.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
US v. Whitehorn
...requirement in this category being limited to persons who "actually witnessed a crime through any of his senses." United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9th Cir.1984); United States v. Cafaro, 480 F.Supp. 511, 520 (S.D.N.Y. 1979); cf. Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 795, 92 S.Ct. 256......
-
U.S. v. Little
...Cir.1980) (quoting United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 112, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 2401, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976); accord United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1467-68 (9th Cir.1984)). However, in response to a request for exculpatory evidence, the prosecution does not have a constitutional duty Rod......
-
U.S. v. Dupuy
...Counsel have cited no case, nor have we found any, involving the precise factual situation here presented. Cf. United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1457 (9th Cir.1984) (abuse of discretion in failing to inspect personnel files before ordering disclosure); United States v. Chacon, 564 F.2d......
-
Com. v. Santiago
...by a mere conclusory allegation that the requested information is material to the preparation of the defense.' " United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1466 (9th Cir.1984), quoting United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir.1970), cert. denied, 400 U.S. 958, 91 S.Ct. 357, 27 L.Ed.2......
-
Early steps in the case
...Criminal Evidence 1-50 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 526 F.3d 499 (9 th Cir. 2008)(en banc); United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9 th Cir. 1984). Dated: Respectfully submitted, s/ Attorney Attorney for Defendant, Bar No. Address Telephone Number: Fax Number: EM......
-
Early steps in the case
...1-8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 526 F.3d 499 (9 th Cir. 2008)(en banc); United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9 th Cir. 1984). Dated: Respectfully submitted, s/ Attorney Attorney for Defendant, Bar No. Address Telephone Number: Fax Number: EMA......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...1-50 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 526 F.3d 499 (9 th Cir. 2008)(en banc); United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9 th Cir. 1984). Dated: Respectfully submitted, s/ Attorney Attorney for Defendant, Bar No. Address Telephone Number: Fax Number: EM......
-
Early Steps in the Case
...1-48 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 526 F.3d 499 (9 th Cir. 2008)(en banc); United States v. Cadet, 727 F.2d 1453, 1469 (9 th Cir. 1984). Dated: Respectfully submitted, s/ Attorney Attorney for Defendant, Bar No. Address Telephone Number: Fax Number: EM......