Filed: Jan. 04, 2017
Latest Update: Jan. 04, 2017
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America's (Government) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #123) filed on January 3, 2017. On December 22, 2016, this Court issued an Order directing the Government to answer the Defendant's question "Was Fort Myers Police Sergeant Jason Petaccio wearing a body camera while participating in the instant criminal investigation " The Government now moves the Court to reconsider its Order
Summary: ORDER 1 SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America's (Government) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #123) filed on January 3, 2017. On December 22, 2016, this Court issued an Order directing the Government to answer the Defendant's question "Was Fort Myers Police Sergeant Jason Petaccio wearing a body camera while participating in the instant criminal investigation " The Government now moves the Court to reconsider its Order...
More
ORDER1
SHERI POLSTER CHAPPELL, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the United States of America's (Government) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. #123) filed on January 3, 2017. On December 22, 2016, this Court issued an Order directing the Government to answer the Defendant's question "Was Fort Myers Police Sergeant Jason Petaccio wearing a body camera while participating in the instant criminal investigation?" The Government now moves the Court to reconsider its Order.
As grounds for the reconsideration, the Government states that Sgt. Petaccio was wearing a body camera while participating in the instant criminal investigation on August 15, 2015, but argues that the Defendant should not be allowed to use an interrogatory, a civil discovery tool, in a criminal case. The Government is correct in its position that interrogatories are not discovery tools provided for under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16. See United States v. Conder, 423 F.2d 904, 910 (6th Cir. 1970) cert. denied 91 S.Ct. 357 (holding that Rule 16(b) is limited to the inspection and copying of tangible objects and does not allow interrogatories as a mode of discovery).
However, the Court did not direct the Government to produce the answer to Defendant's question to compel a reply to an interrogatory. Instead, the Court directed the Government to answer the question pursuant to Kyles v. Whitley, which held that evidence may be compelled if the evidence tends to prove slovenly police work. 514 U.S. 419, 446-47, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 131 L. Ed 2d 490 (1995). In its Order compelling the answer to the Defendant's question, the Court stated whether Sgt. Petaccio was wearing a body camera goes to whether or not the investigation performed at the alleged scene of the crime was performed in a conscientious manner or if it was substandard. Now that the Government has provided the answer to the Defendant's question in its reply, the Motion for Reconsideration is due to be granted and the Defendant's Motion to Compel is now moot.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
The United States of America's (Government) Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 123) is GRANTED. The Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. #110) is hereby DENIED as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED.
