United States v. Gosar, 19-306 (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20200130f81
Visitors: 15
Filed: Jan. 29, 2020
Latest Update: Jan. 29, 2020
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS INTERVIEWS BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Chief Magistrate Judge . The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel witness interviews of Senator Cantwell's staff members, filed January 27, 2020. Dkt. 39. The government has not listed the four staff members as witnesses. The staff members are not germane to Defendants' defenses. Defendants admit they refused to follow law enforcement directives to leave the closed federal building or be cited. Defendants also indi
Summary: ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS INTERVIEWS BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA , Chief Magistrate Judge . The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel witness interviews of Senator Cantwell's staff members, filed January 27, 2020. Dkt. 39. The government has not listed the four staff members as witnesses. The staff members are not germane to Defendants' defenses. Defendants admit they refused to follow law enforcement directives to leave the closed federal building or be cited. Defendants also indic..
More
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL WITNESS INTERVIEWS
BRIAN A. TSUCHIDA, Chief Magistrate Judge.
The Court DENIES Defendants' motion to compel witness interviews of Senator Cantwell's staff members, filed January 27, 2020. Dkt. 39. The government has not listed the four staff members as witnesses. The staff members are not germane to Defendants' defenses. Defendants admit they refused to follow law enforcement directives to leave the closed federal building or be cited. Defendants also indicated they intend to defend their refusal to follow law enforcement directives to leave based upon necessity, and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The Court has entered an order precluding these defenses, and thus Defendants' attempt to obtain from the Senator's staff information in support of these defenses lacks any basis.
To the extent the four members of the Senator's staff have any possible favorable or exculpatory evidence that is material to Defendants' guilt, innocence, or punishment, the government is reminded it is required to provide such evidence to defense counsel under Local Criminal Rule 16 and Brady v, Maryland and its progeny.
Source: Leagle
