United States v. Coles
Decision Date | 07 January 2021 |
Docket Number | CRIMINAL NO. 1:16-CR-212 |
Citation | 511 F.Supp.3d 566 |
Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Kevin COLES, Devin Dickerson, Torey White, Jerell Adgebesan, Kenyatta Corbett, Nicholas Preddy, Johnnie Jenkins-Armstrong, Terrence Lawson, and Tyrone Armstrong, Defendants |
Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
William A. Behe, U.S. Attorney's Office, Harrisburg, PA, for United States of America.
Thomas A. Thornton, Federal Public Defender, Harrisburg, PA, for Defendants.
Christopher C. Conner, United States District Judge In accordance with the court's July 16, 2020 pretrial and trial scheduling order, defendants in the above-captioned action have filed their first-tier pretrial motions. Their requests number more than two dozen and seek relief ranging from discovery and disclosures of certain evidence, to dismissal of counts and perceived surplusage from the third superseding indictment, to severance of defendants and counts for trial. This memorandum addresses defendants’ discovery-related motions.
A grand jury sitting in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, returned a five-count indictment in August 2016 charging defendants Kevin Coles and Devin Dickerson with various drug-trafficking and firearms offenses. The grand jury has since returned three superseding indictments. The first, returned April 12, 2018, added a sixth charge against Coles and Dickerson. The grand jury then returned a second superseding indictment on December 20, 2018, adding 16 counts, including several capital charges, and nine new defendants: Torey White, Christopher Johnson, Jerell Adgebesan, Kenyatta Corbett, Michael Buck, Nicholas Preddy, Johnnie Jenkins-Armstrong, Terrance Lawson, and Tyrone Armstrong. We promptly assigned learned capital counsel to each death-penalty-eligible defendant (Coles, Dickerson, White, Johnson, Adgebesan, Corbett, Buck, and Jenkins-Armstrong) in accordance with 18 U.S.C. § 3005.
We convened a telephonic conference on March 15, 2019, to discuss pretrial scheduling. We appointed a coordinating discovery attorney at defendants’ request, set a discovery deadline, and established February 3, 2020, as the government's deadline to provide notice of intent to seek the death penalty pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3593(a). We later imposed a status-report requirement, tasking the government to file reports at 45-day intervals concerning, inter alia , the status of discovery and whether the government had made an initial decision not to seek the death penalty as to any eligible defendant.
The grand jury returned a third superseding indictment on January 29, 2020. That indictment, inter alia , added a new capital charge against the death-penalty-eligible defendants, (see Doc. 499 at 24); added a new noncapital charge against those defendants and Preddy, (id. at 18-19); and added Preddy to all new and existing capital counts, making him death-penalty-eligible for the first time, (id. at 12-17, 20-23). The third superseding indictment charges defendants in 22 counts, as follows1 :
(See Doc. 499 at 8-41). We appointed learned counsel for Preddy shortly after the third superseding indictment was returned.
On June 4, 2020, following two concurred-in extensions of its Section 3593(a) deadline, the government notified defendants and the court that it would not seek the death penalty as to any eligible defendant. We held a telephonic conference on June 22, 2020, to discuss pretrial and trial scheduling and the propriety of retaining learned counsel given the government's election. After hearing from counsel, we issued a memorandum and order authorizing the formerly death-penalty-eligible defendants to continue with two attorneys. We then entered a pretrial and trial scheduling order which established four tiers of pretrial motions: non-fact-based motions (to sever, to dismiss, for bill of particulars, and concerning discovery), due October 23, 2020; fact-based and suppression motions, due January 11, 2021; expert motions, due August 2, 2021; and motions in limine , due November 5, 2021. That order also established an August 2, 2021 deadline for the parties to provide notice of their experts and adopted the government's proposal for a November 5, 2021 early-disclosure date for its Jencks Act material.
Defendants have now filed 19 individual and omnibus first-tier motions. (See Docs. 586, 588, 590, 592, 652, 660, 662, 664, 666, 668, 670, 672, 673, 676, 679, 679-3, 680, 683, 685). After several extensions of briefing deadlines at the government's request, defendants’ first-tier motions became ripe for disposition on January 4, 2021. This memorandum addresses defendants’ discovery-related motions. A separate memorandum will follow, taking up defendants’ remaining motions.
We will summarize the pending motions, delineate the standards by which they must be adjudged, and then address the issues presented therein. Defendants’ discovery motions run the gamut from demands for disclosure of exculpatory evidence to requests for the identification of witnesses. Coles, White, Adgebesan, and Preddy move to compel disclosure of long lists of material believed to be in the government's possession. They also seek immediate production of any exculpatory and impeachment material the government may have. Coles, White, and Preddy ask us to order the government to identify its jailhouse-informant witnesses, and Preddy further requests a court order directing the government to identify all of its witnesses in advance of trial. Dickerson's lone request is for modification of the existing protective order.3
We begin with an overview of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial- United States v. Parfaite
- United States v. Nickas
-
United States v. Fields
...Court notes there is recent precedent for ordering disclosure of such evidence thirty days in advance of trial. United States v. Coles, 511 F.Supp.3d 566, 593 (M.D. Pa. 2021). In Coles, the District Court concluded: “Given the circumstances and complexity of this prosecution, and the antici......
-
United States v. Gamble
...than simply the “disclosure of the general nature of the evidence.” Johnson, 218 F.Supp.3d at 261; see also United States v. Coles, 511 F.Supp.3d 566, 593 (M.D. Pa. 2021) (noting that, under Rule 404(b), “[t]he notice must be in writing and must articulate the permitted purpose for which th......