United States District Court, D. Colorado
A. BRIMMER, United States District Judge
matter comes before the Court on defendant's Combined
Motion for the United States to Specify What Discovery it
Intends to Use at Trial and for the Defense to Be Provided
with the Grand Jury Transcripts [Docket No. 98], Motion for
Compliance with the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act
[Docket No. 100], Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter Jurisdiction [Docket No. 103], Motion to Set Deadlines
and for Updated Status on Previous Filed Motions [Docket No.
113], and Motion to Adopt All Previous Filed Pro Se Motions
[Docket No. 116]. These motions were filed pro se and,
accordingly, the Court will liberally construe
defendant's motions to determine if they can be
“reasonably read . . . to state a valid claim on which
[defendant] could prevail.” United States v.
Guerrero, 488 F.3d 1313, 1316 (10th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
Medina has been convicted of various crimes in state court
and is currently serving a lengthy sentence in the Colorado
Department of Corrections (“CDOC”). Docket No. 19
at 1 (“I have been sentenced to the Colorado Department
of Corrections to a term of forty four (44) years since
August 11th 2015 from Jefferson County case
14-CR-304.”); see also Docket No. 38 at 4.
indictment in this case was returned on October 7, 2014.
Docket No. 1. An arrest warrant issued the same day. Docket
No. 2. By letter to Jefferson County Sheriff Ted Mink dated
March 26, 2015, Mr. Medina requested that Mr. Mink
“give notice” to the various jurisdictions where
cases were pending against Mr. Medina that he was
“requesting speedy trial of any warrants/detainers
forthwith.” Docket No. 55-2; see also Docket
No. 55 at 2. By letter to the Clerk of this Court, dated
March 29, 2015 and filed April 2, 2015, Mr. Medina requested
the address of the Court and the U.S. Attorney's office
“[i]n order to properly file motions.” Docket No.
5. On April 9, 2016, the United States filed a petition for a
writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum directed to the Denver
Reception & Diagnostic Center, but it was returned
unexecuted on May 26, 2015. Docket Nos. 6-10.
superseding indictment was returned on June 9, 2015, which
charges the defendant with fifteen counts, including
possession of firearms by a prohibited person, mail theft,
bank fraud, and aggravated identity theft. Docket No. 11. The
United States filed a petition for a second writ of habeas
corpus ad prosequendum, directed to the Mesa County Detention
Facility, on June 12, 2015. Docket No. 15. The writ issued on
July 31, 2015, Docket Nos. 17-18, but there is no evidence it
December 29, 2016, defendant filed a pro se motion arguing
that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and rights
under the Interstate Agreement on Detainers, 18 U.S.C. App. 2
(“IAD”), had been violated. Docket No. 19. On
January 3, 2017, the United States filed a petition for a
third writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, directed to the
Colorado Territorial Correctional Facility, and the writ
issued the same day. Docket Nos. 20-23. On January 11, 2017,
defendant made his initial appearance and a Federal Public
Defender was appointed. Docket Nos. 25, 27, 28. Despite being
represented by counsel, defendant filed several pro se
motions. See Docket Nos. 41, 42, 43. The Court
struck the pro se motions as improper. Docket No. 44.
January 31, 2017, defendant, through counsel, requested an
ends of justice continuance so that counsel could prepare for
trial. Docket No. 38. On February 6, 2017, without holding a
hearing, the Court granted defendant's request to exclude
180 days from the Speedy Trial Act period and set the trial
to begin on October 2, 2017. Docket No. 40.
filed a pro se objection to the trial continuance, arguing
that it was prejudicial to his Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial. Docket No. 45 at 1, 4. Defendant also moved to
proceed pro se. Docket No. 47. On February 22, 2017, the
Court held a hearing on these two motions. Docket No. 49. At
the hearing, defendant stated that he agreed with his counsel
that a trial continuance was necessary, but he did not think
it needed to be so long and he worried it would be
prejudicial to his right to a speedy trial under the Sixth
Amendment, which he claimed had already been violated. Docket
No. 102 at 16, 16:2-19. The Court proposed denying
defendant's motions without prejudice and allowing the
defendant to expedite his Sixth Amendment speedy trial
challenge, a proposal that Mr. Medina agreed to. Id.
at 21-23, 21:12-23:23. The Court denied defendant's
objection to the trial continuance and his motion to proceed
pro se without prejudice. Docket No. 49 at 2.
hearing on April 25 and 27, 2017, Mr. Medina advised the
Court that he wished to represent himself. Docket No. 67. The
Court granted defendant's request and appointed advisory
counsel. Docket No. 69 at 2.
has filed numerous pro se motions. Docket Nos. 41-43, 47,
61-65, 68, 72, 73-75, 76, 87, 90, 91, 94-100, 103, 110, 113,
116, 121-22. T he Court has ruled on many of these motions,
Docket Nos. 44, 49, 66, 69, 84, 112, and set deadlines for
the United States to respond to others. Docket Nos. 101, 117,
Court will take up the instant motions, Docket Nos. 98, 100,
103, 113, 116, in the order that they were filed.
Docket No. 98 - Combined Motion
Motion for Identification of Discovery
claims that he has received “an excessive amount of
discovery” and “needs to be able to distinguish
what portions apply to him and what portions apply to his
Brother to ensure there is not a misidentification or false
evidence presented against [him].” Docket No. 98 at 1.,
¶ 1. The United States responds that it “will
identify the exhibits it intends to use at trial pursuant to
the Court's Practice Standards.” Docket No. 105 at
Court's practice standards require the parties to submit
exhibit lists two business days before the trial preparation
conference. Practice Standards (Criminal cases), Judge Philip
A. Brimmer § IV.A.2. Accordingly, the parties'
exhibit lists are due September 22, 2017, with trial set to
start October 2, 2017. See Docket No. 40. The Court
finds that defendant has not shown good cause to modify the
deadline for the parties to disclose their exhibit lists or
otherwise require the United States to identify specific
discovery it intends to rely on. Cf. Fed. R. Crim.
P. 45(b)(1). Notably, defendant does not claim that he needs
the United States to specify what evidence it intends to use
at trial in order that he can file a motion to suppress.
See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(4)(B) (“the
defendant may, in order to have an opportunity to move to
suppress evidence under Rule 12(b)(3)(C), request notice of
the government's intent to use (in its evidence-in-chief
at trial) any evidence”). Moreover, it is unclear how
defendant's stated aim of ensuring that evidence
pertaining to his brother is not used against him would be
furthered by the United States identifying the evidence it
intends to use at trial. Although such identification could
narrow the pool of evidence defendant would have to consider,
he would still have to determine whether he ...