United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Augusta Division
K. EPPS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court are the various pre-trial discovery motions filed
by Defendant. Many (if not all) discovery issues should be
addressed in full by the Court's rulings below and the
liberal discovery policy that the government has confirmed it
is applying in this case. Indeed, Defendant does not allege
any specific inadequacies in the discovery provided by the
government to date, and the government states it has
furnished Defendant with one DVD containing an electronic
copy of the investigative file, video recordings, and other
documents which are material to the case, excepting attorney
and agent work product. (Doc. no. 184, p. 1.) All known
statements by Defendant, as well as any criminal record for
Defendant, have also been provided. (Id. at 1, 2.)
extent, if any, either party believes there are specific
inadequacies in the discovery exchanged to date that are not
addressed below, the Court directs such party to confer in
good faith with the opposing party and file, if necessary, a
discovery motion and supporting brief within seven days from
the date of this Order.
FOR LIST OF GOVERNMENT WITNESSES
requests an order directing the government to furnish a
complete list of witnesses. In non-capital cases such as this
case, a defendant is generally not entitled to a list of
government witnesses. United States v. Massell, 823
F.2d 1503, 1509 (11th Cir. 1987); United States v.
Johnson, 713 F.2d 654, 659 (11th Cir. 1983); United
States v. Colson, 662 F.2d 1389, 1391 (11th Cir. 1981).
While this Court retains the right to exercise its discretion
in permitting Defendant to have access to a list of
government witnesses, at most the government would be
required to comply with this request not more than fourteen
days prior to trial. Therefore, the Court DENIES this motion.
(Doc. no. 178.) However, as a practical matter, it would
appear that Defendant will be receiving much of this
information because of the government's liberal discovery
policy and because of the government's obligation to
disclose material pursuant to the Jencks Act and/or Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).
FOR NOTICE BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE INTENTION TO RELY UPON
OTHER CRIMES EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF EVIDENCE
seeks notice of the government's intention to use at
trial evidence of “other crimes, wrongs or acts”
under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). This motion is MOOT (doc. no. 179)
because the Court, in its Arraignment Order, directed the
government to provide such notice in accordance with the
TO PROVIDE TRANSCRIPTS OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS
moves to disclose grand jury proceedings, including a
transcript thereof. As the government states it produced the
grand jury transcripts to defense counsel on January 6, 2017,
the motion is MOOT. (Doc. no. 180.)
FOR DISCLOSURE OF EXCULPATORY AND IMPEACHING MATERIAL
seeks the disclosure of exculpatory and impeaching
information in accordance with the principles of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). (Doc. no. 181.) To some
extent, Defendant's request exceeds the scope of the
requirement in Brady for government disclosure of
information that is favorable to a defendant and material to
the issues of guilt or punishment. Brady, 373 U.S.
at 87; United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).
The Court GRANTS the motion to the extent that the government
must provide all Brady material to Defendant within
five days of the date it is received or its existence becomes
known. The government must disclose impeaching information
not less than fourteen days prior to trial.
FOR EARLY DISCLOSURE OF JENCKS ACT MATERIAL
Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires the government to
provide a defendant with statements of witnesses immediately
following their testimony in court. There is no authority for
the Court to grant an early release or disclosure of that
material. United States v. Schier, 438 F.3d 1104,
1112 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Jordan, 316
F.3d 1215, 1251 & n.78 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v.
Jimenez, 613 F.2d 1373, 1378 (5th Cir. 1980). Yet
because the government does not oppose the motion and early
disclosure of Jencks Act material will avoid unnecessary