United States v. Delacruz

• Decision Date: 19 April 2019
• Docket Number: 3:17-CR-00201
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERY DELACRUZ, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JERY DELACRUZ, Defendant.

3:17-CR-00201

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

April 19, 2019

(JUDGE MARIANI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Presently before the Court are Defendant Jery Delacruz's Motion to Compel Discovery Materials (Doc. 57) and Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Material Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 (Doc. 58).

On July 11, 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Defendant Delacruz and his brother Hector Delacruz as follows: (1) under 21 U.S.C. § 846 with conspiracy to unlawfully distribute and possession with intent to distribute 100 grams and more of heroin, a Schedule I controlled substance; 28 grams and more of cocaine base (crack), a Schedule II controlled substance; and unspecified amounts of cocaine, marijuana, and fentanyl, Scheduled controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) (Count I); and (2) under 21 U.S.C. § 841 with the substantive violation for the afore-listed controlled substances, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) and (b)(1)(B) and 18 U.S.C. §2 (Count II). (Doc. 1).

On October 18, 2017, Delacruz appeared before Magistrate Judge Joseph Saporito wherein he entered a plea of not guilty to the indictment and was ordered detained. (Docs. 30, 31). Defendant thereafter filed a Motion to Compel Discovery Materials (Doc. 57) and Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Material Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 (Doc. 58). Although neither of Defendant's motions were accompanied by supporting briefs, the United States filed briefs in opposition to Defendant's motions (Docs. 65, 66). On November 15, 2018, the Court having issued an order directing Defendant to show cause why the motions should not be deemed withdrawn for failure to file a brief in support of each motion (Doc. 89), Defendant filed his supporting briefs (Docs. 91, 93) and an "Answer to Rule to Show Cause" (Doc. 94). Upon review of Defendant's Answer, and receipt of Defendant's supporting briefs, the Court finds that Defendant's motions will not be deemed withdrawn and must be decided on their merits.

The Court will address the motions in turn.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Compel Discovery Materials

In Defendant's first motion (Doc. 57), he requests that the Court require the Government to disclose the following information:

1. Notice of the Government's intention to use hearsay statements pursuant to Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence;

2. Expert Information Pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure as well Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 and 705;3. Disclosure of the Government's intention to use evidence pursuant to Rules 404(b) and 609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence;

4. Disclosure of the Government's witnesses and any statements made by witnesses including the identity of confidential informants and any inducements offered to those individuals in an effort to procure their testimony;

5. The disclosure of all evidence sought to be admitted at trial by the Government pursuant to the "co-conspirator exception" to the hearsay rule 801(d)(2)(e);

6. Any and all evidence requested in Exhibit A that has not been provided to the Defense by the Government at the time of the hearing of this motion.¹

(Doc. 57, ¶ 8).

As the Court explained in its show cause order:

. . . although neither of Defendant's motions was ever briefed, the Government did file briefs in opposition to Defendant's motions (Docs. 65, 66). Defendant did not file a reply brief in response to either of the Government's briefs. The Court is thus left with briefing, albeit thorough, from only the Government on the issues raised, and the Government's interpretation of Defendant's pretrial requests. In addition, throughout the Government's briefs in opposition, it asserts that it has turned over all required information and that once it has further information requested by the Defendant, it will be provided to him as required under the Federal Rules of Evidence, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Jencks, and any other applicable laws.

Defendant's motions fail to address in any detail the facts of this case, the alleged need for any of the requested evidence in this case, or explain why he believes that the Government has not fully complied with its duties under Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, and all other applicable law. Due to the sweeping nature of Defendant's motions and the lack of any accompanying briefs setting forth in more specificity what Defendant is seeking, the reasons for each request, and adequate citations to applicable rules and case law in support of his requests,and the Government's repeated assertions that it has turned over all documents and other evidence to which it believes Defendant is currently entitled, the Court is not in a position to currently evaluate what specific information Defendant is seeking and whether he is entitled at this time to that information.

(Doc. 89, at 2-3).

Despite this Court's direction that each of Defendant's briefs should include "the facts of this case, the alleged need for any of the requested evidence in this case, [and should] explain why he believes that the Government has not fully complied with its duties under Rule 16, Brady, Giglio, and all other applicable law" and that the briefs should include "in more specificity what Defendant is seeking, the reasons for each request, and adequate citations to applicable rules and case law in support of his requests", Defendant's brief in support of his request for the afore-listed evidence, only broadly argues, in less than one page, that (1) "[t]he Government should be required to disclose these materials because their disclosure is required" in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, Brady v. Maryland, Giglio v. United States, and Kyles v. Whitely; and (2) "the failure to receive [the materials] would render counsel for the defendant unable to provide the reasonable investigation necessary to achieve the effective assistance that is required under" the Constitution. (Doc. 91, at 5). Defendant's generalized explanation and requests fail to adequately cite supporting case law or its applicability to the present case and fail to explain, as the Court requested, why he believes that the Government has not fully complied with its duties in light of theGovernment's detailed response to Defendant's motion wherein they repeatedly asserted that they had turned over all required information.

Nonetheless, despite the Defendant's complete failure to provide any substantive argument with respect to any of his requests in his motion, or any supporting case law, the Court attempts herein to address each of Defendant's requests to the extent possible.

1. Notice of the Government's intention to use hearsay statements pursuant to Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence.

Defendant first seeks "[n]otice of the Government's intention to use hearsay statements pursuant to Rule 807 of the Federal Rules of Evidence." Pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 807, the "residual exception" rule:

(a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:

(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;

(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;

(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and

(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.

(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant's name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.

Fed. R. Evid. 807. The Third Circuit has repeatedly explained that "'[t]he residual hearsay exception is to be used only rarely, and in exceptional circumstances, and is meant to apply only when certain exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness exist and when high degrees ofprobativeness and necessity are present.'" United States v. Lawrence, 349 F.3d 109, 117 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting Bohler-Uddeholm Am., Inc. v. Ellwood Gp., Inc., 247 F.3d 79, 112 (3d Cir. 2001)).

In response to Defendant's request for disclosure of the Government's intention to use hearsay statements pursuant to Rule 807, the Government persuasively notes that "it would be impossible to recount the array of statements that will be admitted in the course of this trial, and seek pre-trial rulings on their admissibility", but represents, as the Court would expect of any party, that it "will not seek to admit inadmissible hearsay in its case-in-chief" (Doc. 65, at 7). The Government further represents that it "is unaware at this time of any information responsive to the defendant's requests which has not already been provided to the defendant or to which the defendant is not entitled at this time." (Id.). The Government explains that "[o]nce Government witnesses are identified, [it] will affirmatively seek from its witnesses any information relative to the defendant's requests" and "will advise defense counsel of any such information and will provide the required notice" in advance of trial. (Id.).

Defendant's brief in support of his motion, despite being filed after the Government's brief, does not contest any of the Government's representations or provide any basis for this Court to order the Government to disclose information which it asserts it has already provided or has acknowledged it will provide as necessitated under the applicable rules.

The Court will therefore deny Defendant's motion without prejudice.

2. Expert information pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(G)...