Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Antoine

United States District Court, D. Colorado

February 14, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
1. CLARENCE ANTOINE, 9. LATISHA FORD, Defendants.

          ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC DISCOVERY

          CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge

         This matter is before the Court on Defendant Latisha Ford's and Defendant Clarence Antoine's motions requesting discovery from the Government. (Doc. ## 542, 587.) Defendant Ford specifically requests an order compelling the Government to disclose:

A) any and all text messages intercepted and preserved on Target Telephone 6 (TT6) using the Green Tiger System;
B) general information about the Green Tiger System and individual operators' use of it; and
C) information related to the dismissal of the indictments against co-defendants Clayton Jones and Dominic James, and any other defendants

         who were dismissed under similar circumstances.

         Defendant Antoine raises only the fourth request. Having thoroughly reviewed the parties' written briefing and the applicable law, the Court finds and concludes as follows.

         I. LEGAL STANDARD

         Generally speaking, “[t]here is no . . . constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case, ” Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977); United States v. Garrison, 147 F.Supp.3d 1173, 1178 (D. Colo. 2015). In large part, discovery in a criminal case is governed by the provisions of Fed. R. Crim. P. 6, 12, 16, and 26.2; the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500; as well as the holdings of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957), and their progeny. The Government has an ongoing obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence that exists regardless of whether such evidence is requested by a Defendant. Brady, 373 U.S. at 83, United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976); Bagley, 473 U.S. 667; Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995). “The duty to disclose such information continues throughout the judicial process.” Douglas v. Workman, 560 F.3d 1156, 1172-73 (10th Cir. 2009).

         Defendants may not make discovery requests that amount to a “blind fishing expedition among documents possessed by the Government on the chance that something [favorable to the defense] might turn up.” Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414 (1953).

         II. ANALYSIS

         A. TEXT MESSAGES INTERCEPTED AND PRESERVED ON TT6

         With respect to Defendant Ford's request for disclosure of text messages on TT6, the Government responds that such information has already been provided: “on June 6, 2017, the [G]overnment produced to all defendants charged in the overall investigation all of the text messages intercepted over all seventeen wiretaps.” (Doc. # 633 at 2.) Defendant Ford's request for those text messages is therefore moot.

         To the extent Defendant Ford wants the Government to further identify specific calls or messages that relate to her, the Government has no duty to do so. Indeed, the Government's only responsibility is to disclose the evidence. It has no obligation ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.