Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

In re Fresno County Superior Court Wiretap Documents, 1:16-CR-00169 DAD (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20161205528 Visitors: 10
Filed: Nov. 04, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2016
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , District Judge . Application having been made to this court by the United States of America for an order pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(8)(b), to disclose portions of the Fresno County Superior Court Orders authorizing the interception of wire and electronic communications, the accompanying applications, affidavits, and recordings, in the above-entitled case, and Those orders, applications, affidavits, and recordings having previously bee
More

ORDER

Application having been made to this court by the United States of America for an order pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(8)(b), to disclose portions of the Fresno County Superior Court Orders authorizing the interception of wire and electronic communications, the accompanying applications, affidavits, and recordings, in the above-entitled case, and

Those orders, applications, affidavits, and recordings having previously been sealed by Fresno County Superior Court but authorized to be released to the United States for disclosure in discovery to defendants in the above-captioned matters, and

Good cause having been shown by the United States in its application as required by Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(8)(b),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that portions of the above-referenced order, and the accompanying application and affidavits may be disclosed to parties for use in a criminal action in:

a) United States v. Dejohn Wiley, et al 1:16-CR-00176 DAD, b) United States v. Dionne Singleton, 1:16-CR-00175 LJO, c) United States v. Anthony Thomas, et al, 1:16-CR-00174 DAD, d) United States v. Khaliff Campbell, et al, 1:16-CR-00173 DAD, e) United States v. Jamar Johnson, 1:16-CR-00172 LJO, f) United States v. Charlie Stevenson, et al, 1:16-CR-00170 DAD, g) United States v. Robert Gonzalez, et al, 1:16-MJ-00140 BAM (and any subsequent case based upon an indictment following this case), h) United States v. Omar Gonzalez, 1:16-CR-00169 DAD, i) United States v. Jesus Velazquez, 1:16-MJ-00143 BAM (and any subsequent case based upon an indictment following this case), j) United States v. Rashad Halford, et al, 1:16-MJ-00144 BAM (and any subsequent case based upon an indictment following this case); k) United States v. Anthony Ramirez, 1:16-MJ-00146 BAM (and any subsequent case based upon an indictment following this case)

Any state or federal prosecution that requires disclosure of the wiretap documents in discovery only provided this Order shall be in effect and honored for any such case pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 2518(9), and for any other purpose required by Chapter 119 of Title 18, United States Code.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the parties and defense counsel, including but not limited to defense counsel's staff, investigators, and outside assistants, shall not disclose the contents of the documents released by the government through discovery in this case, except as necessary for investigative work for the prosecution or presentation of defenses in this case. No copies of documents, tape-recordings, or other items released by the government in discovery in this case may be given to the defendant or any third party who is not a member of defense counsel's staff or hired as defense investigators or outside assistants, including relatives or friends of the defendant.

IT IS FURTHER ORDER that this order may be served on the parties who will be in receipt of the redacted applications, affidavits, and/or orders.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer