U.S. v. BAEZ, 15-10256-RGS. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts
Number: infdco20171023j18
Visitors: 3
Filed: Oct. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . Before the court is a motion to dismiss an indictment that arises out of a discovery dispute that, on its face, appears to involve less a failure of the government to satisfy its Brady obligations than an objection about the format in which the government has produced discovery materials. Whatever troubles defendant may have encountered in obtaining access to computer facilities in the penal
Summary: ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT RICHARD G. STEARNS , District Judge . Before the court is a motion to dismiss an indictment that arises out of a discovery dispute that, on its face, appears to involve less a failure of the government to satisfy its Brady obligations than an objection about the format in which the government has produced discovery materials. Whatever troubles defendant may have encountered in obtaining access to computer facilities in the penal i..
More
ORDER ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT
RICHARD G. STEARNS, District Judge.
Before the court is a motion to dismiss an indictment that arises out of a discovery dispute that, on its face, appears to involve less a failure of the government to satisfy its Brady obligations than an objection about the format in which the government has produced discovery materials. Whatever troubles defendant may have encountered in obtaining access to computer facilities in the penal institutions in which he has been incarcerated, both sides agree that on July 21, 2017, the Superintendent of MCI-Cedar Junction wrote to defendant's counsel confirming that the discovery materials were available for defendant's review in the prison library in an accessible, unencrypted format. See Def's Mem. at 8-9 (Dkt #289); Govt's Mem. at 1 (Dkt #281). While the court possesses broad discretion to tailor sanctions to fit the egregiousness of a discovery violation, where no such violation has occurred, or even if one did, no prejudice to the defendant resulted, no sanction is appropriate, much less the nuclear option of dismissal of an indictment. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U.S. 250, 255 (1988) ("[A] district court exceeds its powers in dismissing an indictment for prosecutorial misconduct not prejudicial to the defendant . . ..").
ORDER
For the foregoing reason, the motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
