USA v. Mujahid

Filing 173

Order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
SABIL M. MUJAHID,
Defendant.

3:09-cr-034-TMB-JDR
SECOND ORDER
REGARDING
MOTION(S) FOR LEAVE TO
CONDUCT DISCOVERY
( § 2255)
and
MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION
(Docket No. 157, 163, 164)

Defendant Sabil M. Mujahid has filed a second motion for leave to
conduct discovery. Docket 163. The government has moved the court to reconsider

its order (Docket 162) addressing the defendant’s first motion for leave to conduct
discovery. Docket 164.
Motion to Reconsider, Docket 164
The court first addresses the government’s request for reconsideration
which essentially argues that the defendant is entitled to no discovery because the
government had no obligation to provide impeachment information as to Gregory
Tseboate who was called as a witness for the defense and not the government. The
court is well aware that Tseboate was not called as a government witness at trial.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declined to address the Brady/Napue issues
raised on appeal in this case because the issue presents allegations of fact outside
the trial court record. An issue in the § 2255 proceedings is whether exculpatory or
impeaching evidence was illegally withheld by the government from the defendant
for his use at his trial.

The credibility of Tseboate was significant at trial in

determining the ownership of the firearm and ammunition that Mujahid had in his
possession.
The § 2255 Motion raises issues of material fact regarding the
government’s due process duty to disclose exculpatory material to the defense. A
determination of whether any previously undisclosed information is “material” to guilt
or innocense entitles the defendant to collateral relief is preserved for the evidentiary
hearing and arguments of counsel. Information is “material” if had the evidence

09-cr-034-TMB-JDr MUJAHID @157-163-164 Order Re Motions re discovery.wpd

2

been disclosed to the defense, there is a “reasonable probability” that the result of
the trial would have been different. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 682
(1985) and cases cited in the defendant’s briefing. The defendant has made a
sufficient showing for the need for discovery as granted.
The focus is on the fairness of the trial and not on the good or bad faith
of the prosecutor. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). In its motion for
reconsideration the government states that none of the information Mujahid seeks
about Tseboate is material to his guilt or innocense. This may or may not be so, but
it is premature for the court to resolve that argument.
The court declines to vacate the Order for leave to conduct discovery
at Docket 162. However, that Order is amended as follows: That part of the Order
directing the government to identify by name “Jane Doe 10" and “Jane Doe 13"
relating to Request No. 5 in Docket 157 is hereby vacated. The court will, if
requested, revisit this request after conducting an in camera review of material
pertaining to those persons before considering the evidence adduced at the
evidentiary hearing on the § 2255 motion. In all other respects the Order at
Docket 162 shall stand.
To the extent that the government is concerned about its work product
being produced or the production of material that may be subject to a privilege to
prevent its disclosure then the government should present such material in response

09-cr-034-TMB-JDr MUJAHID @157-163-164 Order Re Motions re discovery.wpd

3

to the discovery order to the magistrate judge for an in camera review. Except as
stated above the government’s Motion for Reconsideration is hereby denied.
Motion for Additional Discovery, Docket 163
The defendant has submitted a second motion for leave to conduct
discovery. Request No. 1 seeks information relating to the government’s civil and/or
criminal investigation of Tseboate as to alleged fraud of obtaining money from the
Department of Homeland Security or other government agency in the aftermath of
Hurricane Katrina. The court file in United States v. Gregory McGruder, 3:08-cv00241-JWS is closed but not sealed. The defense can pursue that information on
its own. The defendant requests material from the government relating to their
evaluation of the evidence against Tseboate in order to take legal action against him
as well as all documents or recordings relating to Tseboate regarding possible fraud
in obtaining disaster relief assistance. These requests are overly broad and not
designed to solicit only information related to this § 2255 motion.1 Request No. 1c.
is likewise too broad and does not clearly designate whether the request is referring
to the government’s investigation of Tseboate or Mujahid.
Request No. 2 seeking all written and

summaries of oral

communications between the government and Tseboate before June 19, 2009

1

The Criminal Case of United States v. Tseboate, 3:09-cr-0054-TMB is
closed and not under seal.
09-cr-034-TMB-JDr MUJAHID @157-163-164 Order Re Motions re discovery.wpd

4

related to possible income tax fraud and/or tax evasion is similarly not limited to
material affecting this § 2255 proceedings. Request Nos. 1 and 2 are hereby
denied. Any further discovery requests must await the outcome of the evidentiary
hearing which is presently set for February 29, 2012.
DATED this 10TH day of February, 2012, at Anchorage, Alaska.

/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge

09-cr-034-TMB-JDr MUJAHID @157-163-164 Order Re Motions re discovery.wpd

5