United States v. Wright
| Decision Date | 09 February 2023 |
| Docket Number | 5:21-po-00583-SAB-1 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AUSTIN WRIGHT, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL
Currently before the Court is Defendant Austin Wright's motion for a new trial brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33. Defendant argues the interest of justice requires the Court grant a new trial for two reasons. First the Government's failure to provide a copy of Defendant's criminal history record violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(D) and deprived Defendant of critical information that may have impacted his decision to go to trial. Second, the Court violated Defendant's right to a public trial and his right to be present when it issued its written memorandum decision following the bench trial in this matter rather than announcing its verdict and finding in a public setting. For the reasons explained below, any violation is either harmless or the only requested relief, a new trial, is not an appropriate remedy. Accordingly Defendant's motion for a new trial shall be denied.
On August 23, 2021, a citation was filed charging Austin Wright (“Defendant” or “Mr. Wright”) with one count of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382, entering military, naval, or Coast Guard property for prohibited purpose. (ECF No. 1.) On September 7, 2021, Defendant made an initial appearance and entered a plea of not guilty. (ECF No. 7.)
A bench trial was initially set for March 4, 2022, before Magistrate Judge L. Thurston. (ECF No. 3.) On February 1, 2022, this case was reassigned to Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone. (ECF No. 6.) A hearing was held on March 4, 2022, at which Defendant requested discovery and the Court ordered the Government to provide discovery within two weeks. (ECF No. 8.) A status conference was set for April 12, 2022. (Id.) On April 12, 2022, the Court held a status conference and set a second status conference for June 7, 2022. (ECF No. 13.) On June 7, 2022, the Court held a status conference, and a bench trial was set for August 2, 2022.
On August 2, 2022, the Court held a bench trial. (ECF No. 17.) Jason Baskett and Alex Dempsey appeared on behalf of the Government. Erin Snider appeared on behalf of Defendant, who was also present. On September 28, 2022, the Court issued its memorandum of decision after court trial (“Memorandum Decision”), finding Defendant guilty of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1382. (ECF No. 20.) The Court converted the October 4, 2022, status conference into a sentencing hearing. (Id.)
On October 1, 2022, the Government filed a sentencing memorandum based partly on Defendant's prior criminal record. (ECF No. 21.)[1] On that same date, Defense Counsel emailed counsel for the Government inquiring why the Government never provided a criminal history report as required under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, but Defense Counsel received no substantive answer prior to the filing of the motion for new trial. (Mot. 4; Decl. Erin Snyder Supp. Mot. (“Snyder Decl.') ¶ 5, ECF No. 23-1.)
At the October 4, 2022 hearing, Defense Counsel requested the Court continue the sentencing hearing to enable Defendant to respond to the late-filed sentencing memorandum, and the Court granted the request, setting the sentencing hearing for November 17, 2022. (ECF No. 22.) At the October 4, 2022 hearing, the Government requested the Court to read the verdict into the record, citing United States v. Ramirez-Ramirez, 45 F.4th 1103 (9th Cir. 2022) (“Ramirez-Ramirez”). At the October 4, 2022 hearing, the Court reiterated its finding that Defendant was guilty of a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1382. (Id.) The Court also instructed Defendant to notify the Court in writing by October 20, 2022, if Defendant requests a formal reading of the Memorandum Decision. (Id.)
On October 12, 2022, Defendant filed the motion for new trial that is currently before the Court. (Def's Mot. New Trial (“Mot.”), ECF No. 23.) On October 19, 2022, the Government filed an opposition brief. (Govt. Opp'n Mot. (“Opp'n”), ECF No. 24.) On October 19, 2022, Defendant filed a statement notifying the Court that Defendant did not take the position that it is necessary or required for the Court to formally read the Memorandum Decision into the record. (ECF No. 25.) Defendant's notice also specified that such reading of findings of fact is a distinct issue from that raised in the current motion for new trial. (Id. at 1-2.)
“Upon a defendant's request, the government must furnish the defendant with a copy of the defendant's prior criminal record that is within the government's possession, custody, or control if the attorney for the government knows--or through due diligence could know--that the record exists.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(D); see also L.R. 440(a) ().
Under the Fifth Amendment, “[n]o person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V. Under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial.” U.S. Const. amend. VI.
Under Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, unless Rule 43, “Rule 5, or Rule 10 provides otherwise, the defendant must be present at: . . . every trial stage, including jury impanelment and the return of the verdict.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(a)(2). “A defendant need not be present under any of the following circumstances: . . . The offense is punishable by fine or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both, and with the defendant's written consent, the court permits arraignment, plea, trial, and sentencing to occur by video teleconferencing or in the defendant's absence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(b)(2). “If the defendant waives the right to be present, the trial may proceed to completion, including the verdict's return and sentencing, during the defendant's absence.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 43(c)(2).
“In a case tried without a jury, the court must find the defendant guilty or not guilty.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 23(c). “If a party requests before the finding of guilty or not guilty, the court must state its specific findings of fact in open court or in a written decision or opinion.” Id.
“Upon the defendant's motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). “If the case was tried without a jury, the court may take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.” Id.
Defendant moves for a new trial on two proffered grounds: (A) the Government's failure to provide a copy of Defendant's criminal history record violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(D); and (B) the Court violated Defendant's right to a public trial and his right to be present when it issued its written memorandum decision following the bench trial in this matter rather than announcing its verdict and finding in a public setting.
Defendant moves for a new trial arguing the Government has violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(D).
On March 4, 2022, Defendant requested discovery encompassing all discovery to which Defendant was entitled under Rule 16, including any criminal history report under Rule 16(a)(1)(D). Two days later, Defendant proffers the Government seemingly complied with its obligations under Rule 16 when it produced two photographs and promised to investigate the existence of any additional photographs and reports. (Mot. 5; Snyder Decl. ¶ 4.) Given the absence of a criminal history report in the government's initial discovery production, Defense Counsel suggests they had no reason to believe that Defendant had a criminal record. Now, over six months after initial discovery was due, the Government has produced a copy of Defendant's prior criminal record for the first time, which dates back to at least 2011. (Mot. 5.)
Defense Counsel contends that while the report appears to have been generated on September 30, 2022, counsel for the Government would have been aware of Defendant's record in March 2022, when initial discovery was due, had counsel for the Government exercised due diligence. (Id.) Defendant suggest that as the Government has access to Defendant's criminal record now, it presumably had access to his record six months ago when the Government was ordered to produce Rule 16 discovery. Therefore, Defendant argues the Government did not exercise due diligence six months ago, and instead, chose to wait until after Defendant exercised his right to go to trial and then blindsided the defense on the eve of the sentencing hearing. Defendant contends the Government's failure to produce the criminal record in a timely fashion deprived Defendant-and, by extension, Defendant's counsel-of information that may have impacted the decision to go to trial, and that the only appropriate remedy for the flagrant violation of the Government's obligations under Rule 16 is a new trial.
The Government responds that Defendant's criminal history was not in the Government attorney's “possession custody, or control” at the time discovery was ordered or on the date of Defendant's trial. (Opp'n 3.) The Government proffers the “Government attorney does not maintain any...
To continue reading
Request your trial