United States v. Sampson

• Jurisdiction: United States,Federal
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LAVONTE SAMPSON, Defendant.
• Citation: United States v. Sampson, 2:21-cr-20732 (E.D. Mich. Jan 17, 2024)
• Decision Date: 17 January 2024
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Michigan
• Docket Number: 2:21-cr-20732

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. LAVONTE SAMPSON, Defendant.

No. 2:21-cr-20732

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

January 17, 2024

OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR BRADY MATERIAL [#70] AND DENYING DEFENDANT'S EX PARTE MOTION FOR RULE 17(c) SUBPOENA [#71]

GERSHWIN A. DRAIN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

The grand jury returned an Indictment against Defendant Lavonte Sampson on December 7, 2021, charging him with sex trafficking children in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a), and production of child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2251(a). A jury trial in this matter is set to commence on January 24, 2024. This matter was previously scheduled to start trial on January 10, 2024; however, the minor victim in this matter was ill and the Court adjourned the trial to the January 24, 2024 date.

Now before the Court are the Defendant's motions, both filed after the January 10, 2024 original trial date. Specifically, Defendant's Motion for Brady Material, filed on January 11, 2024, and Defendant's Ex Parte Motion for a Rule 17(c) Subpoena, also filed on January 11, 2024. In his motions, Defendant seeks the minor victim's mental health treatment records from therapy, counseling, social service providers, Child Protective Services, Detroit Children's Hospital, and the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services from 2020 onward.

Defendant seeks to have the Court review the records in camera and hand over any exculpatory evidence to the defense.

The Government filed a Response to the Defendant's request for Brady material on January 14, 2024. The Government argues it does not have any of the minor victim's mental health records in its possession, and Defendant is not entitled to these records in any event. The Government further asserts that if Defendant seeks these records via a Rule 17(c) subpoena, the Government will move to quash the subpoena.^[1] Defendant filed a Reply in support of his Motion for Brady material on January 15, 2024.

Oral argument on the Defendant's Motion for Brady material was held on January 16, 2024. For the reasons that follow, the Court will deny both of Defendant's present motions.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The facts of this matter were thoroughly set forth in an Opinion and Order dated December 19, 2023. As such, the Court will only discuss the facts pertinent to the Defendant's present motions. The charges giving rise to the instant action followed law enforcement's investigation of a 15-year-old minor reported missing to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) by her social worker and a subsequent NCMEC finding that the minor was being advertised for commercial sex work online. The minor victim has been in foster care since 2017 and her care has been managed by the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services since she was removed from her parents' home.

The social worker who reported the minor victim missing indicated that the minor had some mental health issues, specifically that she may have post traumatic stress disorder, including a history of self-harm, special needs, and suicidal ideations. The social worker further advised that the minor victim was prescribed medication or medications that she may or may not have had with her when she departed the place she had been staying. However, the social worker did not identify the medical condition associated with the medication. The minor victim was recovered on November 30, 2020.

In a May 2021 forensic interview, the minor victim indicated that she had been in some type of residential treatment facility for about five months.

Defendant theorizes she was either placed there immediately following or shortly after she was picked up by law enforcement. According to Defendant, the minor victim's story has changed repeatedly between her first forensic interview in December 2020 and her last forensic interview on December 28, 2023.

III. LAW & ANALYSIS

A. Standards of Review

Under Brady, the Government violates due process if it fails to disclose evidence that is material to either guilt or to punishment. See Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). “[T]he rule stated in Brady applies to evidence undermining witness credibility.” Wearry v. Cain, 577 U.S. 385, 393 (2016) (citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 153-55 (1972)(impeachment evidence falls within Brady “[w]hen the reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence.”)).

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c)(3) allows a defendant to request “a subpoena requiring the production of personal or confidential information about a victim,” which “may be served on a third party only by court order.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(c)(3). However, Rule 17(c) is not meant to authorize a broader scope of discovery than what is permitted under Rules 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the Jencks Act, and the Brady/Giglio line of cases. See Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951); United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 697-700 (1974); United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1285 n. 12 (6th Cir. 1988) (denoting that in most criminal proceedings, these rules “exhaust the universe of discovery to which the defendant is entitled.”).

A party seeking to obtain records by means of a Rule 17(c) subpoena must show the information being sought is relevant, admissible, and specific. United States v. Hughes, 895 F.2d 1135, 1145-46 (6th Cir. 1990). In United States v. Nixon, supra, the Supreme Court held that production pursuant to Rule 17(c) is appropriate where the movant shows:

(1) The documents are evidentiary and relevant;

(2) They are not otherwise procurable, with due diligence, in advance of trial;

(3) The party cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and inspection in advance of trial; and

(4) The application was made in good faith and is not a fishing expedition.

Nixon, 418 U.S. at 699.

B. Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Defendant advances the same law and argument in both of his present motions. In his briefing, Defendant primarily relies on his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. He asserts the minor victim's mental health records will provide insight into her mental state around the time of the alleged events giving rise to the charges in this matter. He argues she is the sole witness with firsthand knowledge of the alleged events; thus, her credibility will be paramount to any determination of guilt or innocence.

The Defendant further maintains that the Government has provided notice that it will call an expert to testify on topics of trauma, disassociation, and delayed disclosure in an effort to anticipatorily rehabilitate the minor victim's credibility given her changing accounts of what transpired during the events giving rise to the instant charges. The Defendant argues the mental health records “may reveal the true reasons” behind the minor victim's change in accounts during each of the forensic interviews. ECF No. 70, PageID.999. Defendant further asserts it is “critical that he understand the extent of the counseling received, who the minor victim spoke to about the events, how these people reacted and whether the minor victim was medicated during her interviews, and whether she claimed to not remember what happened, whether she has been diagnosed with a conduct disorder and whether she has problems with her memory.” Id. Defendant's arguments are not well taken.

A criminal defendant does not have an unassailable right to discover and use confidential or privileged information to impeach a witness in advance of trial. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 53-54 (1987). In Ritchie, a plurality held that a defendant's right to confront witnesses against him was not violated when a child protective service agency refused to turn over its confidential records to him, because those records were privileged under state law. Id. at 43-46. The Richie plurality determined that “the right to confrontation is a trial right” and declined “to transform the Confrontation Clause into a constitutionally compelled rule of pretrial discovery.” Id. at 52. In so finding, they stated that “[t]he ability to question adverse witnesses, however, does not include the power to require the pretrial disclosure of any and all information that might be useful in contradicting unfavorable testimony.” Id. at 53.

Defendant does not address privilege in his briefing even though the psychotherapist/patient evidentiary privilege has been well-established in this circuit for decades. See United States v. Hayes, 227 F.3d 578, 581-82 (6th Cir. 2000) (citing In re Zuniga, 714 F.2d 632, 637 (6th Cir. 1983)). The Supreme Court recognized the psychotherapist/patient privilege in Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1, 10-11, 15 (1996)(explaining that recognizing psychotherapist/patient communications as privileged will facilitate “an atmosphere of confidence and trust[,] . . . [and] serves public ends [because] the mental health of the American citizen . . . is a public good of transcendent importance.”).

In his Reply brief, Defendant erroneously argues the psychotherapist/patient privilege does not apply in criminal actions because Jaffee was a civil case. The Jaffee court held that patient communications to a psychotherapist are protected from compelled disclosure under Federal Rule of Evidence 501. Jaffee, 518 U.S at 15; see also United States v. Sheppard, 541 F.Supp.3d 793, 799-800 (W.D. Ky. 2021) (rejecting the defendant's argument that the psychotherapist/patient privilege does not apply in criminal cases); Fed.R.Evid. 101(a)-(b) (the Federal Rules of Evidence “apply to...