United States v. Fatty
| Decision Date | 03 August 2018 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 17-161 SECTION "I" (3) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. MUSA FATTY |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Before the Court are Defendant Musa Fatty's Motion for Production of Brady Material and for Written Confirmation of Government's Inspection of All Locations Where Brady Material May Exist [Doc. #33] and Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars. [Doc. #34]. For the following reasons, the motions are denied.
The indictment and the subsequent development of this case reveal the following. On August 24, 2017, the Grand Jury for the Eastern District of Louisiana returned a three-count indictment, charging defendant Musa Fatty with one count of conspiracy to export stolen motor vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, one count of attempted exportation of stolen motor vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 553(a)(1) and 2, and one count of attempted smuggling of motor vehicles, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 554(a) and 2.
With respect to the conspiracy count, the indictment specified four separate overt acts that were committed by Fatty and others in furtherance of the conspiracy. Specifically, the indictment alleged that: (1) on or about September 6, 2016, Fatty caused a shipping container to be exported from New Orleans to Banjul, Gambia; (2) on or about September 21, 2016, Fatty and others loaded motor vehicles into a shipping container located in Harvey, Louisiana; (3) on or about January 5, 2017, Fatty and others loaded motor vehicles into a shipping container at the same location; and (4) on or about March 8, 2017, Fatty and other individuals loaded three vehicles into a shipping container at the same location.
The indictment arose out of an investigation conducted by the Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI") of a stolen-car exportation organization, of which Fatty was a member. On March 16, 2017, members of the United States Customs and Border Protection ("CBP") searched a cargo container scheduled for export from the port of New Orleans to the Gambia. The shipping manifest for this container listed three vehicles, but the descriptions of these vehicles did not match the actual contents of the container. Specifically, the manifest listed a 2004 Acura TSX, a 1994 Toyota Camry, and a 2006 Toyota Rav 4 as the items to be exported, but the container contained a 2017 Mercedes Benz, a 2015 Audi A8, and a 2017 Toyota Rav 4. All of these cars had previously been reported stolen. The Mercedes had been stolen in Marlborough, New Jersey, on February 18, 2017. The Audi had been stolen from Greenwich, Connecticut, on February 25, 2017, and the Rav 4 had been stolen from Springdale, Ohio, on February 18, 2017.
The investigation revealed that Fatty rented a storage unit in his name at a U-Haul Moving & Storage of Lapalco Blvd ("U-Haul"), located in Harvey, Louisiana. Fatty hired a company named Larsen Intermodal Services ("Larsen") to bring the aforementioned shipping container to the U-Haul and place it outside of his storage unit in Harvey. Surveillance camera footage from the U-Haul captured an individual fitting the description of Fatty, along with other still-unidentified individuals, loading the Mercedes, Audi, and Toyota Rav 4 into the aforementioned shipping container on March 8, 2017. Fatty hired Larsen to transport the shipping container with these vehicles from the U-Haul in Harvey to the port in New Orleans.
A freight forwarding company named LogiWorld L.L.C. was hired to arrange the transport of this shipping container from the port of New Orleans to the Gambia. Records from LogiWorldL.L.C. indicated that the exporter was a person named "Gerald Faceteau." The drivers' license provided to LogiWorld L.L.C. for "Gerald Faceteau," however, was counterfeit.
HSI's investigation revealed that Fatty had arranged similar shipments in the past. Specifically, surveillance footage from the U-Haul in Harvey showed Fatty loading vehicles into other shipping containers on earlier dates, including on or about September 21, 2016 and January 5, 2017. These dates corresponded to shipments to the Gambia of containers with vehicles, according to documents from CBP.
Fatty was arrested in connection with this case in Atlanta, Georgia on October 17, 2017. After receiving Miranda warnings, Fatty made a recorded statement to members of the investigative team. Fatty admitted to shipping vehicles from New Orleans on several occasions. He stated that he was contacted by two separate individuals, one in New York and one in the Gambia, to ship vehicles out of New Orleans to the Gambia. According to his statement, Fatty did not know the name of the individual in the Gambia and had stored his contact information in his cellular phone as "car man." Fatty indicated that he knew the first name of the individual in New York, which coincidentally was also Musa, although he did not know this individual's last name. Fatty admitted that he shipped vehicles for "Musa" from New York on approximately five occasions, and for "car man" on one occasion. The shipment for "car man" was the last time that Fatty shipped vehicles out of New Orleans. This final container was seized by CBP, as described above.
Fatty recalled that the final container included expensive vehicles, including an Audi and Mercedes. He stated that several "Mexican" individuals transported the vehicles to New Orleans, although Fatty did not provide the names of those people. Further, Fatty said that one of "carman's" friends also came to New Orleans in connection with the export.
Though Fatty repeatedly stated that he did not know that the vehicles were stolen, he admitted during this interview that he was suspicious because the vehicles that he was asked to export were high-value. Indeed, he stated that he insisted that "car man" bring someone to New Orleans to help load the car so that if "anything could go down," he would have someone else to point to in order to "save [him]self." Fatty also admitted that he had a "sense" that "something is not right with this shipment." Finally, at the end of the interview, Fatty stated,
Fatty's initial appearance occurred in the Northern District of Georgia, and he was released on bond. Fatty appeared in this district on October 20, 2017. Fatty filed a motion seeking production of certain Brady materials on May 3, 2018. Specifically, Fatty requested fifteen categories of information, including such items as the substance abuse history of government witnesses, prior "bad acts" of government witnesses, grand jury materials, and instances that prior law enforcement witnesses used "profanity."
Defendant also filed a motion for a bill of particulars on May 3, 2018. Specifically, defendant requests four items: (1) the identity of the other co-conspirators; (2) the date that the conspiracy began; (3) the date that Mr. Fatty joined the conspiracy; and (4) the date that each of the other co-conspirators joined the conspiracy.
In his motion to compel, and as noted above, defendant moves for fifteen categories (and sub-categories) of allegedly Brady material. He also asks that the Court order the government tocertify that it has searched all locations where Brady material may be located.
In his motion for a bill of particulars, defendant seeks four particulars: (1) the name of the persons with whom he allegedly conspired; (2) the date that the conspiracy began; (3) the date that he joined the conspiracy; and (4) the date that the other persons joined the conspiracy. Defendant contends that he needs this information to avoid surprise at trial and to adequately prepare his defense. He argues that this information is particularly important because he is required to notice an alibi defense.
The government maintains that defendant's motion, titled a Brady motion, requests fifteen categories of documents, almost none of which comprises Brady materials, and is thus premature and should be denied. The government is aware of its obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny, and will comply with its obligation to provide defense counsel with information that is material to either guilt or to punishment. To the extent that defendant is requiring a written certification that the government has complied with its Brady obligations, the government maintains that defendant has cited no authority for the proposition that any such written confirmation is required, nor is the government aware of any such precedent.
The government contends that Brady is not a discovery rule, but a rule of fairness and minimum prosecutorial obligation. It also argues that Brady is not a pretrial remedy and is not applicable at pre-trial stages.
The government also notes that defendant requests Jencks Act and Giglio materials. The government argues that under the Jencks Act, it need not produce the material until after the witness testifies, although it is now common practice for the government to produce it the Fridaybefore trial.
The government maintains that most of defendant's "Brady" requests are actually requests for impeachment materials for the government's witnesses. The government argues that these demands are also premature, given that the trial is still weeks away, and the government's witness list is not finalized. Although the government is under no obligation to disclose Giglio material at this time, it addresses the fifteen categories of documents raised by defendant.
Next, the government contends that the indictment has provided defendant with sufficient specifics, and beyond that, he is not entitled to additional particulars. The government notes that defendant has not raised any argument that the indictment is deficient because the indictment tracks the language of...
To continue reading
Request your trial