U.S. v. TITUS, CR-06-00427 RMW. (2012)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20120206438
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. The Probation Office has requested permission to disclose defendant's presentence report to the family of Arthur Graham because of suspicion that defendant may be engaged in conduct with respect to Mr. Graham that is similar to the behavior that led to her guilty plea in 2007. The court understands the Probation Office's concern, but feels that the proper procedure would be for the party seeking to view the presentence report to file a motion with the cou
Summary: ORDER RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge. The Probation Office has requested permission to disclose defendant's presentence report to the family of Arthur Graham because of suspicion that defendant may be engaged in conduct with respect to Mr. Graham that is similar to the behavior that led to her guilty plea in 2007. The court understands the Probation Office's concern, but feels that the proper procedure would be for the party seeking to view the presentence report to file a motion with the cour..
More
ORDER
RONALD M. WHYTE, District Judge.
The Probation Office has requested permission to disclose defendant's presentence report to the family of Arthur Graham because of suspicion that defendant may be engaged in conduct with respect to Mr. Graham that is similar to the behavior that led to her guilty plea in 2007. The court understands the Probation Office's concern, but feels that the proper procedure would be for the party seeking to view the presentence report to file a motion with the court explaining why such disclosure "is necessary to serve the ends of justice." United States v. Schlette, 842 F.2d 1574, 1579 (9th Cir. 1988) (citing Berry v. Department of Justice, 733 F.2d 1343, 1352 (9th Cir. 1984)). The movant should also address the "degree to which the information in the presentence report cannot be obtained from other sources." Schlette, 842 F.2d at 1584 (citing United States v. Charmer Indus., Inc., 711 F.2d 1164, 1177 (2d Cir. 1983)). Finally, the movant must provide notice to the defendant. After considering such a motion, the court will issue an order determining whether disclosure is appropriate.
Source: Leagle
