United States v. Fields
| Decision Date | 27 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | CRIMINAL 21-458 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DAVID FIELDS |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
Defendant David Fields is charged in a one-count indictment with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) ECF No. 3. Mr. Fields has filed the following pretrial motions, which are ripe for resolution. Motion for Disclosure of Brady/Giglio Materials, ECF No. 47; Motion for Additional Discovery, ECF No. 49; Motion for Early Disclosure of Jencks Material, ECF No. 51; Motion to Compel Government to Provide Defendant with Written Statement of Uncharged Misconduct Evidence and/or Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) Evidence and for Pretrial Production of Such Evidence, ECF No. 53; and Motion for Court Order to Preserve Rough Notes, ECF No. 55. The government has filed an Omnibus Response to said Motions. ECF No. 58.
Mr. Field seeks production of all exculpatory evidence, and all material and information that may be favorable to him, pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Mr. Fields also requests all potential impeachment material pursuant to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). See also United States v. Perdomo, 929 F.2d 967 (3d Cir. 1991).
“In Brady, the Supreme Court held that due process required that [upon request] the government produce all “exculpatory” evidence, which includes both ‘[m]aterials ... that go to the heart of the defendant's guilt or innocence and materials that might affect the jury's judgment of the credibility of a crucial prosecution witness.'” United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 68 (3d Cir. 1994) (quoting United States v. Hill, 976 F.2d 132, 134-35 (3d Cir.1992)). Once a defendant makes a request for such materials, the government is obligated to disclose such exculpatory evidence, “in time for its effective use at trial.” United States v. Higgs, 713 F.2d 39, 44 (3d Cir. 1983) ().
The Supreme Court in Giglo extended its ruling in Brady to encompass impeachment evidence relating to the credibility of a government witness. Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154. Any inducements or rewards given to government witnesses, including but not limited to money, grants of immunity, plea bargains, promises of leniency or recommendations thereof, or preferential treatment, would fall under impeachment evidence that must be disclosed under Brady. See Higgs, 713 F.2d at 43 (“Evidence that government witnesses have been granted immunity and/or leniency for their cooperation is clearly relevant on the issue of their credibility”).
In its Response the government indicates that it has “already provided and intends to continue to provide whatever actual exculpatory information may exist and has not already been disclosed.” Govt. Resp. 3. The government also states that it intends to provide any impeachment material in advance of trial so that Mr. Fields can make effective use of the materials. Id. The government also acknowledges its continuing obligation to provide Mr. Fields with any additional Brady/Giglio material sufficiently in advance of trial for its effective use. In order to protect some witnesses, other persons, and ongoing investigations, the government intends to delay disclosure of any sensitive impeachment material to a date that will still permit effective use of the material by the defense. Notably, the government indicates its intention to adhere to court ordered pretrial deadlines with respect to disclosure of such materials and witnesses. To the extent that Mr. Fields requests full scale disclosure of certain materials he has identified (see ECF No. 47 at ¶ 3.a.-l.) there has been no basis presented to warrant disclosure of such material at this time. There is no evidence to suggest that the government is not complying with its obligations. Accordingly, the Motion for Disclosure of Brady/Giglio Materials is DENIED, without prejudice.
Mr. Fields requests specific and detailed additional discovery materials related to the defendant or to the instant case, as set forth in his Motion. ECF No. 49 at ¶ 2.a.-k. In brief, Mr. Fields requests that the government provide him with any information exchanged between any representatives of the United States, the ATF, and the DEA and Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies; videotapes (or composites), recorded oral conversations, record and/or documentary evidence of any kind or nature; affidavits and related materials presented to any judicial officer; expert and scientific reports; any log and/or pen registers; evidence logs memorializing chain of custody; lab reports; and materials or evidence found through a search and/or seizure.
“Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure delineates the categories of information to which defendants are entitled in pretrial discovery in criminal cases, with some additional material being discoverable in accordance with statutory pronouncements and the due process clause of the Constitution.” United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 68 (3d Cir. 1994). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1) requires the government, when requested by defendant, to disclose, within proscribed limits, the defendant's oral, written, or recorded statement (Rule 16(a)(1)(A) & (B)) and the defendant's prior record (Rule 16(a)(1)(D)). In addition, pursuant to Rule 16(a)(1)(E) (“Documents and Objects”), upon the defendant's request, “the government must permit a defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph” said documents and objects as set forth in the Rule. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). Similarly, when requested by defendant, the government must permit the inspection, copying, or photographing of results or reports of any physical or mental examinations and scientific tests or experiments. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F). Finally, when requested, “the government must give to the defendant a written summary of any [expert] testimony that the government intends to use, . . . during its case-in-chief at trial,” and the written summary “must describe the witness's opinions, the bases and reasons for those opinions, and the witness's qualifications.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G). In addition, the government remains under a continuing duty to disclose any additional evidence it discovers. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(c). “Information Not Subject to Disclosure,” is described in Rule 16(a)(2), as follows:
Except as permitted by Rule 16(a)(1)(A)-(D), (F), and (G), this rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case.
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). Rule 16(a)(2) also prohibits “the discovery or inspection of statements made by prospective government witnesses except as provided in [the Jencks Act] 18 U.S.C. § 3500.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2).
The government states that it has complied with its obligations under Rule 16 and states that it intends to adhere to its obligations to supplement its Rule 16 disclosures as new information is learned. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). The government notes, however, that it has not yet conferred with defense counsel with respect to any specific requested additional discovery items identified in the Motion. Therefore, such requests may be rendered moot by a conference. The Motion will be DENIED as premature with respect to materials the defense did not request from the government yet or where the parties have not yet conferred about the requested material. If the government does not turn over certain requested material under Rule 16, Mr. Fields can seek to compel the government to provide such material if one of Rule 16's bases for production of the material is established.
With respect to requests for certain materials, such as the requests for information exchanged between representatives of state and federal agencies and bodies, the government argues that such disclosure is beyond the scope of Rule 16. The Court agrees, and further concludes that without more specific information from Mr. Fields to support his request, the request at this time is overbroad. The Motion, in this regard, is DENIED without prejudice.
As for requested materials that are Jencks materials, by statute[1] the government need not disclose such material until after the witness has testified at trial, and therefore the Motion is DENIED insofar as Jencks materials are requested. Mr. Fields separate Motion specifically requesting early disclosure of Jencks Act material is addressed in the next section.
In summary, there is no indication that the government is not complying with its discovery obligations. Accordingly, the Motion for Additional Discovery is DENIED, as stated above.
Mr Fields seeks early disclosure of Jencks Act material. Specifically, he seeks disclosure of such material fourteen days prior to trial. Pursuant to the Jencks Act, no statement or report made by a government witness or potential government witness “shall be the subject of subpoena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a). “After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement . . . of the witness in the possession of the United States...
To continue reading
Request your trial