United States District Court, D. Colorado
ORDER ON PRETRIAL MOTIONS
William J. Martinez United States District Judge.
Government charges Hanli Yang (“Yang”) and her
co-defendant, Fudong Wu (“Wu”), with three
crimes: (1) conspiracy “to manufacture and possess with
the intent to distribute 1, 000 and more marijuana plants, a
Schedule I controlled substance, in violation of Title 21,
United States Code, Sections 841(a)(1) and
(b)(1)(A)(vii)”; (2) “manufactur[ing] and
possess[ing] with intent to distribute 1, 000 and more
marijuana plants, a Schedule I controlled substance, ”
potentially to include aiding and abetting that crime,
“[a]ll in violation of Title 21, United States Code,
Sections 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(A)(vii) and Title 18, United
States Code, Section 2”; and (3) “us[ing] and
maintain[ing] a [a home in] Aurora, Colorado, for the purpose
of manufacturing and distributing marijuana, a Schedule I
controlled substance, ” potentially to include aiding
and abetting that crime, “[a]ll in violation of Title
21, United States Code, Section 856(a)(1) and Title 18,
United States Code, Section 2.” (ECF No. 1 at 1-2.)
the Court are eight motions filed by Yang:
• Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search Warrant (ECF No.
• Motion for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder (ECF No.
• Motion for Disclosure Pursuant to Rules 404(b) and
609, Federal Rules of Evidence (ECF No. 52);
• Motion for Early Production of Jencks
Material (ECF No. 53);
• Motion for Production of Bruton and Rule
801(d)(2)(E) Materials and Motion for Pretrial James
Determination of Admissibility of Alleged Co-Conspirator
Statements (ECF No. 54);
• Motion to Compel Disclosure of Existence and Substance
of Promises of Immunity, Leniency or Preferential Treatment
(ECF No. 55);
• Motion to Disclose Identity of Informants (ECF No.
• Request for Notice by Government of Intent to
Introduce Evidence Pursuant to Rule 807, F.R.E. (ECF No. 57).
reasons explained below, these motions are variously denied
on their merits, denied as moot, or denied without prejudice
SUPPRESSION MOTION (ECF No. 50)
October 10, 2018, law enforcement officers executed a search
warrant on a residence owned by Yang and her co-defendant,
Wu, in Aurora, Colorado. (ECF No. 69 at 2.) The officers
found about 1, 121 live marijuana plants growing in the
basement, forming the basis of the indictment. Yang
challenges whether probable cause supported the warrant that
authorized law enforcement officers to search her
Burden of Proof
if the search or seizure was pursuant to a warrant, the
defendant has the burden of [proving that the Government
violated the Fourth Amendment].” United States v.
Carhee, 27 F.3d 1493, 1496 (10th Cir. 1994) (internal
quotation marks omitted). Yang has offered no argument why
the general rule does not apply in this case, nor is the
Court aware of any possible argument. Accordingly, Yang bears
the burden here.
Deferential Review of Warrants
is to ensure that the magistrate judge had a substantial
basis for concluding that the affidavit in support of the
warrant established probable cause. The task of the issuing
magistrate is simply to make a practical, common-sense
decision whether, given all the circumstances set forth in
the affidavit there is a fair ...