Filed: Sep. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are the various pre-trial discovery motions filed by Defendant. Many (if not all) discovery issues should be addressed in full by the Court's rulings below and the liberal discovery policy that the government has confirmed it is applying in this case. To the extent, if any, either party believes there are specific inadequacies in the discovery exchanged to date that are not addressed below, the Court directs such party to confer in g
Summary: ORDER BRIAN K. EPPS , Magistrate Judge . Before the Court are the various pre-trial discovery motions filed by Defendant. Many (if not all) discovery issues should be addressed in full by the Court's rulings below and the liberal discovery policy that the government has confirmed it is applying in this case. To the extent, if any, either party believes there are specific inadequacies in the discovery exchanged to date that are not addressed below, the Court directs such party to confer in go..
More
ORDER
BRIAN K. EPPS, Magistrate Judge.
Before the Court are the various pre-trial discovery motions filed by Defendant. Many (if not all) discovery issues should be addressed in full by the Court's rulings below and the liberal discovery policy that the government has confirmed it is applying in this case. To the extent, if any, either party believes there are specific inadequacies in the discovery exchanged to date that are not addressed below, the Court directs such party to confer in good faith with the opposing party and file, if necessary, a discovery motion and supporting brief within seven days from the date of this Order.
GENERAL DISCOVERY MOTION
As to Defendant's general discovery requests, Defendant does not allege any specific inadequacies in the discovery provided by the government to date, presumably because of the government's statement that it has followed in this case its customary practice of providing liberal discovery by furnishing Defendant with written reports from the Office of Inspector General, Department of Justice, and Laurens County Sheriff's Office, excepting attorney and agent work product and personal data redacted. (Doc. no. 47, p. 1.) All known statements by Defendant, as well as his criminal record, and the grand jury transcript in the case have also been provided. (Id. at 1, 2.) Accordingly, the Court finds that the position of the United States Attorney in permitting liberal disclosure of the government's file pertaining to this case renders the general discovery requests MOOT. (Doc. no. 44.)
MOTION TO ALLOW PARTICIPATION IN VOIR DIRE
The Court GRANTS this motion. (Doc. no. 41.) Unless otherwise directed by the presiding District Judge, counsel must submit to the Court, not later than seven days prior to trial, a list of questions which they desire to ask prospective jurors.
MOTION FOR EARLY DISCLOSURE OF JENCKS ACT MATERIAL
The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, requires the government to provide a defendant with statements of witnesses immediately following their testimony in court. There is no authority for the Court to grant an early release or disclosure of that material. United States v. Schier, 438 F.3d 1104, 1112 (11th Cir. 2006); United States v. Jordan, 316 F.3d 1215, 1251 & n.78 (11th Cir. 2003); United States v. Jimenez, 613 F.2d 1373, 1378 (5th Cir. 1980). Yet because the government does not oppose the motion and early disclosure of Jencks Act material will avoid unnecessary delay and inconvenience to the Court and jury, the government is INSTRUCTED to provide Jencks Act material fourteen days prior to trial. (Doc. no. 42.)
SO ORDERED