United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANTS' REQUESTS FOR SPECIFIC
CHRISTINE M. ARGUELLO United States District Judge
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
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
were dismissed under similar circumstances.
Antoine raises only the fourth request. Having thoroughly
reviewed the parties' written briefing and the applicable
law, the Court finds and concludes as follows.
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).
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).
TEXT MESSAGES INTERCEPTED AND PRESERVED ON TT6
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.
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