U.S. v. Discala, 14-cr-399 (ENV). (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. New York
Number: infdco20180403d20
Visitors: 17
Filed: Apr. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Apr. 01, 2018
Summary: SHORT FORM MEMORANDUM & ORDER ERIC N. VITALIANO , District Judge . The government has filed a motion to quash a subpoena requested by defendant Kyleen Cane directed at a cooperating witness. Dkt. No. 550. Having considered the submissions of the parties, Dkt. Nos. 560 & 561, the motion is resolved in the manner and for the reasons as set forth below. 1. Government's Motion to Quash: Motion Ruling Government's motion to quash a Cane
Summary: SHORT FORM MEMORANDUM & ORDER ERIC N. VITALIANO , District Judge . The government has filed a motion to quash a subpoena requested by defendant Kyleen Cane directed at a cooperating witness. Dkt. No. 550. Having considered the submissions of the parties, Dkt. Nos. 560 & 561, the motion is resolved in the manner and for the reasons as set forth below. 1. Government's Motion to Quash: Motion Ruling Government's motion to quash a Cane o..
More
SHORT FORM MEMORANDUM & ORDER
ERIC N. VITALIANO, District Judge.
The government has filed a motion to quash a subpoena requested by defendant Kyleen Cane directed at a cooperating witness. Dkt. No. 550. Having considered the submissions of the parties, Dkt. Nos. 560 & 561, the motion is resolved in the manner and for the reasons as set forth below.
1. Government's Motion to Quash:
Motion Ruling
Government's motion to quash a Cane opposes the motion, arguing that the subpoena is a
subpoena seeking tax returns for trial subpoena and that the standards for pre-trial and trial
government cooperating witness subpoenas differ.
Jamie Sloan, from 2007 through The cases that Cane cites are inapposite on the point
2013;. of controversy. For example, the Court in United States
v. Friedman, 854 F.2d 535 (2d Cir. 1988), did not
explicitly determine that quashing a trial subpoena was
"error," but said that "even if the . . . notes [that were the
target of the subpoena] were not privileged and the
quashing of the subpoena was error, the error was
harmless beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 571. United
States v. Giampa, 1992 WL 296440 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), in
fact modified the subpoena "so as to make them
returnable at the time when [the witness] testifies at
trial." 1992 WL 296440, at *4.1 Finally, in United
States v. Orena, 883 F. Supp. 849, 869 (E.D.N.Y. 1995),
the Court denied the motion to quash a pre-trial
subpoena on the basis that the tax returns might
"illuminate the factors which led Sessa to become a
prosecution witness and the benefits he obtained by
doing so." 883 F. Supp. at 869. However, the moving
defendant had agreed to modify the subpoena to become
returnable only, if and when, the relevant witness
testified. Id.
Accordingly, the government's motion to quash Cane's
trial subpoena is granted but only to the extent that the
subpoena is modified to compel the production of the tax
returns on the day that Jamie Sloan is scheduled to
testify. The records will be made available for the
purposes of impeachment, but, unless some door is
opened on direct examination, are not likely admissible
in their own right.
So Ordered.
FootNotes
1. The subpoenas in United States v. Stofsky, 527 F.2d 237 (2d Cir. 1975), made one tax return returnable on the first day of trial and the others during the government's case.
Source: Leagle
