ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the government's "Motion for Rule 15 Depositions" (Dkt. # 47). The government seeks to depose 10 witnesses in Vietnam to preserve their testimony for trial. Because defendant is in federal custody in SeaTac, Washington, the government also seeks to conduct these depositions without defendant's presence. Although some witnesses have indicated a willingness to travel to the United States to testify at trial, others have informed the government that they are not willing to travel to testify. Having considered the parties' memoranda and the remainder of the record, the Court GRANTS the government's motion.
In March 2012, the government began investigating defendant based on a tip from a confidential informant that defendant was planning to hire people to kill his common-law wife's relatives and his nephew in Vietnam. After learning of this alleged scheme, Homeland Security Investigations ("HSI"), through its Country Attache Office in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam, informed the Vietnamese Ministry of Public Safety ("MPS") of defendant's plan. MPS assigned an officer to investigate the murder plot. MPS also assigned an undercover agent to pose as a hired assassin. During MPS's investigation, defendant's nephew in Vietnam took the MPS undercover agent to the houses of the intended targets.
Defendant was arrested in July 2012, near Tacoma, Washington, after discussing his plans with an undercover HSI agent in Washington. He is charged with conspiracy to kill persons in a foreign country in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 956(a)(1) and solicitation to commit a crime of violence in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 373.
Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Rule 15") authorizes the trial court to grant a motion for depositions to preserve testimony for trial in "exceptional circumstances and in the interest of justice." Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(a)(1). "The district court retains broad discretion in granting a Rule 15(a) motion, and considers the particular circumstances of each case to determine whether the `exceptional circumstances' requirement has been satisfied."
In his response to the government's motion, defendant relies too heavily on the factors lauded by the Ninth Circuit in
Contrary to defendant's assertion, Rule 15(a) does not require a showing that the witness is unavailable for trial or that the evidence is material or favorable.
Having considered the parties' memoranda and the remainder of the record, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist under Rule 15. Although five of the witnesses identified by the government are currently willing to travel and testify at trial in October 2013, the Court cannot ignore the uncertainty of the witnesses' future willingness to travel. Moreover, MPS will not allow two important witnesses to travel to the United States to testify at trial. Because the witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of the United States, the Court finds that exceptional circumstances exist. The Court, therefore, GRANTS the government's motion for Rule 15 depositions.
Rule 15 also governs the circumstances under which a witness may be deposed outside the United States without the defendant's presence. Under Rule 15(c)(3), a witness may be deposed outside of the United States without the defendant's presence if the Court finds
Fed. R. Crim. P. 15(c)(3).
The Court finds that the conditions for deposing a witness outside of the United States without the defendant's presence are satisfied. First, the government has established that the testimony of the witnesses could provide substantial proof of material facts in the case against defendant. For example, defendant's nephew and the MPS undercover agent could provide evidence that shows that defendant gave specific instructions to his nephew regarding the details of the murders. Both witnesses could testify that defendant's nephew showed the MPS undercover agent where defendant's wife's relatives lived so he would know where to find the targets. Similarly, the family members and friends identified by the government could provide testimony that confirms information defendant and his nephew gave the undercover agents.
Second, as explained earlier, all of the witnesses are beyond the subpoena power of the United States. Thus, there is a substantial likelihood that their presence at trial cannot be obtained. Third, for reasons similar to those preventing the witnesses from testifying at trial, the Court finds that the witnesses' presence for depositions in the United States cannot be obtained. Finally, the Court finds that defendant cannot be present at the deposition, but can meaningfully participate from Seattle. Defendant is currently in federal custody and federal marshalls cannot assure continuing custody of the defendant throughout the stay in Vietnam. Defendant, however, will be able to participate in the depositions through the use of a video-conferencing system in the U.S. Attorney's Office while one of defendant's lawyers is physically present at the depositions in Vietnam.
Defendant argues that the government has not satisfied Rule 15(c)'s requirements for conducting a deposition in a foreign country without the defendant present in light of Rule 15's strong preference for face-to-face confrontation. Dkt. # 48 at 7-8. The Ninth Circuit has held that "before the `Confrontation Clause's preference for face-to-face confrontation' may be avoided by resort to telephonic participation, the Government `must
Here, like in
The government also requests that the Court permit the use of some or all of the depositions at trial. Dkt. # 47 at 12. The Court finds this request premature as the Court will be better suited to consider the totality of the circumstances, such as the
For all of the foregoing reasons, the government's motion for Rule 15 depositions (Dkt. # 47) is GRANTED.