United States v. Rupert
| Decision Date | 06 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-cr-104 (NEB/TNL) |
| Parties | United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Matthew Lee Rupert, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Angela M. Munoz and Jordan L. Sing, Assistant United States Attorneys, United States Attorney's Office, 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 600, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for the Government); and
Jordan S. Kushner, Law Office of Jordan S. Kushner, 431 South Seventh Street, Suite 2446, Minneapolis, MN 55415 (for Defendant).
This matter is before the Court, United States Magistrate Judge Tony N. Leung, on the following pretrial motions:
A hearing was held on September 30, 2020. ECF No. 51. Assistant United States Attorneys Angela M. Munoz and Jordan L. Sing appeared on behalf of the United States of America (the "Government"). Attorney Jordan S. Kushner appeared on behalf of Defendant Matthew Lee Rupert. Based upon the record, memoranda, and oral arguments of counsel, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows:
1. The Government's Motion for Discovery Pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 16(b), 12.1, 12.2, 12.3 and 26.2, ECF No. 14, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. This motion seeks discovery available under Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 16(b), and 26.2, as well as the establishment of deadlines for the disclosure of expert witnesses. There was no objection by Defendant to the Government's motion. See Tr. 7:4-10, ECF No. 54.1 The Government's motion is granted in part as to the discovery sought under Rules 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 16(b), and 26.2. The Court will address the disclosure of expert witnesses (and the agreement reached by the parties with respect thereto at the hearing) in connection with Defendant's Motion for Discovery of Expert Under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), ECF No. 27. See infra ¶ 7.
2. Defendant's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to the Accused, ECF No. 22, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendantseeks disclosure of evidence favorable to him under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967), Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967), and Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972). He also seeks information regarding Government witnesses.
The Government acknowledges its obligations under Brady, Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and their progeny, and states that it has complied and will continue to comply with those obligations. Gov't's Consol. Resp. at 1, ECF No. 39. The Government objects to Defendant's motion to the extent it seeks information beyond the requirements of these authorities. Gov't's Consol. Resp. at 1.
"The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment requires the government to disclose to the accused favorable evidence that is material to guilt or punishment." United States v. Dones-Vargas, 936 F.3d 720, 722 (8th Cir. 2019) (citing Brady, 373 U.S. at 87); see United States v. Whitehill, 532 F.3d 746, 753 (8th Cir. 2008) () (citations omitted). "The [Supreme] Court has extended Brady protection to witness-credibility evidence when the reliability of the witness 'may well be determinative of guilt or innocence.'" United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913, 930 (8th Cir. 2014) (quoting Giglio, 405 U.S. at 154); accord Dones-Vargas, 936 F.3d at 722; see Whitehill, 532 F.3d at 753. "One reason for this extension to witness-credibility evidence is because exposure of a witness's motivation in testifying is a proper and important function of the constitutionally protected right of cross-examination." Sigillito, 759 F.3d at 930 (quotation omitted). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals "ha[s]determined that witness motivations, like the payment of money as an incentive to change testimony, fall within the Brady disclosure requirement." Id. (citing United States v. Librach, 520 F.2d 550, 554 (8th Cir. 1975)). "Furthermore, the prosecutor must disclose the possibility of a reward that gives the witness a personal stake in the defendant's conviction." Id. (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 683 (1985)).
Nevertheless, "[a] federal criminal defendant generally has no right to know about government witnesses prior to trial." United States v. Polk, 715 F.3d 238, 249 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted); see United States v. Hamilton, 452 F.2d 472, 479 (8th Cir. 1971) ; United States v. Wisman, No. 4:06CR0036 DJS/TCM, 2006 WL 587601, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 9, 2006) ().
Defendant's motion is granted in part to the extent that the Government shall comply fully with its obligations under Brady, Giglio, and their progeny and disclose all exculpatory and impeachment evidence as well as Jencks Act and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2 materials. If the Government subsequently discovers additional exculpatory or impeachment evidence, it shall disclose such evidence as soon as practicable after such discovery. The parties are encouraged to provide Jencks Act materials no less than one week before trial. See infra ¶ 6.
To the extent Defendant seeks discovery and disclosures outside the Government'sobligations under these authorities or seeks materials that have already been produced, such requests are denied. See United States v. Johnson, 228 F.3d 920, 924 (8th Cir. 2000) (). Further, to the extent Defendant seeks the statements of non-testifying witnesses not otherwise encompassed within the Government's disclosure obligations, these requests are likewise denied. See Hamilton, 452 F.2d at 479; Wisman, 2006 WL 587601, at *2.
3. Defendant's Motion to Compel Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence, ECF No. 23, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Defendant requests "immediate[]" disclosure of "any 'bad act' or 'similar course of conduct'" evidence the Government intends to offer at trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). ECF No. 23 at 1. Defendant also requests that the Government identify the witnesses through whom such evidence will be presented. The Government objects to the extent Defendant seeks the disclosure of "intrinsic" evidence and states that it will disclose "extrinsic" Rule 404(b) evidence no later than 14 days prior to trial. Gov't's Consol. Resp. at 2. At the hearing, however, the parties agreed to disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence no later than 21 days prior to trial. Tr. 9:5-10:9.
Rule 404(b) requires the Government to provide reasonable notice before trial when evidence of a crime, wrong, or other act will be used to "prov[e] motive opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake, or lack of accident." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b)(2). "Rule 404(b) . . . applies to the admission of wrongful-act evidence that is extrinsic to the charged offense . . . ." United States v. Ruiz-Chavez, 612 F.3d 983, 988 (8th Cir. 2010). It does not apply to intrinsic evidence. Id.; see also United States v. Beltz,385 F.3d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir. 2004) (). "Evidence of other wrongful conduct is considered intrinsic when it is offered for the purpose of providing the context in which the charged crime occurred." Ruiz-Chavez, 612 F.3d at 988 (quotation omitted).
Moreover, Rule 404(b) does not require that the Government "disclose directly or indirectly the names and addresses of its witnesses, something it is currently not required to do under [Fed. R. Crim. P.] 16." Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) advisory committee's notes, 1991 Amendments; see Polk, 715 F.3d at 249; Hamilton, 452 F.2d at 479; see also United States v. Miller, 698 F.3d 699, 704 (8th Cir. 2012) ().
Therefore, consistent with the parties' agreement, no later than 21 days prior to trial, the Government shall provide "reasonable notice" of all "extrinsic" evidence then known to the Government that the Government intends to offer within the purview of Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Defendant's motion is otherwise denied. If the Government subsequently discovers additional extrinsic evidence, it shall provide reasonable notice of such evidence as soon as practicable after such discovery.
4. Defendant's Motion for Discovery, ECF No. 24, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART. Without citing to any authority, Defendant seeks a laundry list of discovery. See generally ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 1-29. Some of the materials requested are subject to disclosure under Rule 16(a)(1)(A) through (G) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. See, e.g., ECF No. 24 ¶¶ 1-3, 5, 23, 24. Other requests are largely—and in some instances, entirely—duplicative of other motions filed by Defendant. See, e.g., ECF...
To continue reading
Request your trial