USA v. Santana-Pierna et al
Filing
72
Order, Set Deadlines
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
3:12-cr-002-TMB-JDR
AMENDED ORDER
vs.
JOEL SANTANA-PIERNA a/k/a
GREGORY ALEXIS ORTIZ-MUNIZ
a/k/a OMAR CALDERON
HERNANDEZ a/k/a EDWARD
ALAMO ALAMO a/k/a “PRIMO”;
ABEL SANTANA-PIERNA a/k/a
EMMANUEL MORALES-DIAZ;
MISAEL POLANCO-VILLA a/k/a
“JOSE”;
NICOLAS JIMENEZ SANCHEZ; and
RANDIN PAREDES HENRIQUEZ,
REGARDING
DISCOVERY PLAN
and
PRETRIAL MOTION SCHEDULE
Defendants.
This criminal case charges defendant with theft, fraud and
misapplication from an organization receiving federal funds and money laundering.
Trial in this case is currently set for June 11, 2012. The case was declared
complex by District Court Judge Timothy Burgess on February 24, 2012. Docket 47.
On March 9, 2012 the government moved the court to reconsider portions of the
Order regarding the Discovery plan. Docket 56. The parties filed responses as
follows: Docket 59 by Defendant Abel Santana-Pierna, Docket 60 by Defendant
Misael Polanco-Villa, and Docket 61 by Defendant Nicolas Jimenez-Sanchez.
It is the purpose of this order to set a time table for the government’s
production of designated categories of discovery so further litigation will not be
needed. It is the intent of the Court to avoid unnecessary delay in the production of
discovery.
The parties should continue to work together to provide available
discovery to the defense expeditiously and economically. The defendant should
avoid filing boiler plate discovery motions where the matter can be resolved by
meeting and conferring with the government attorney.
The Pretrial Motion Schedule is binding on all counsel in this case
unless otherwise ordered. This order is not subject to amendment by the parties
without Court approval. The deadlines set below present the latest dates on which
the government has to produce evidence relevant to that category. In the spirit of
continued cooperation the Court expects the government to provide discovery prior
to those dates when feasible. The government will keep a list of discovery provided
to the defendant and the date it was produced.
//
//
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
2
Discovery and Inspection Plan
1.
Defendant’s oral, written or recorded statements as described in
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (a)(1)(A) and (B) disclosed by the government are due
March 1, 2012. (**See Footnote 1)
2.
Defendant’s prior record as described in Fed. R. Crim. P.
16(a)(1)(D) due by March 1, 2012. (**See Footnote 1)
3.
All documents and objects as described in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16
(A)(1)(E), shall be produced by the government by March 1, 2012.**1
4.
Documents and tangible evidence, as well as oral statements, or
other evidence which tends to exculpate a defendant or is favorable or useful to the
defense on the issues of guilt or punishment; or as governed by Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and their
progeny shall be provided to the defense at a time meaningful for use by the
defendant(s) no later than May 11, 2012. See United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774
(9th Cir. 1993). The court has discretion to require non-Jencks Brady material to be
disclosed prior to the commencement of trial. United States v. Cerna, 633 F. Supp.
2d 1053, 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2009). In the exercise of its discretion the court has
considered factors including: (1) the need to protect witnesses; (2) the need to avoid
1
** Regarding Numbers 1, 2 and 3, as to defendant Henriquez arraigned
on 3/9/2012, the deadline is March 16, 2012.
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
3
disruptive trial continuances; (3) the likely lead time defense counsel will need to use
the material effectively; and (4) the fact that impeachment material for trial witnesses
ought to be deferred until closer to trial when witnesses may be identified more
precisely. Id. This case has been declared complex. Requiring production of
potential impeachment evidence particularly that which is not contained in a Jencks
statement prior to trial balances the need for the defense to conduct sufficient
investigation with the goal of preventing avoidable continuances of trial.
5.
The government will notify defendant by May 25, 2012 of its intent
to use statements of co-conspirators and the government will identify those
statements as specifically as possible.
6.
The government will identify any experts it intends to use in its
case-in-chief pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705 by April 27, 2012.
7.
The defendant will identify any experts they intend to use at trial
pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705 by May 15, 2012.
8.
Government expert reports and summary of expert testimony
during the case-in-chief pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (A)(1)(G) shall be produced
by the government by May 8, 2012.
9.
Defendant expert reports shall be produced by the defense to the
government by May 8, 2012.
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
4
10.
Government reports of examinations and tests as described in
Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (a)(1)(F), excluding the expert reports described above, to be
produced by the government, May 8, 2012.
11.
Defense reports of examinations and tests, as described in Fed.
R. Crim. 16 (b)(1)(B), excluding the expert reports described above, shall be
disclosed by May 15, 2012.
12.
Defense documents and objects as described in Fed. R. Crim. P.
16 (b)(1)(A) shall be disclosed or made available for inspection by the government
by May 15, 2012.
13.
Evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts the government seeks
to use at any time during the trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 404(b) shall be disclosed
on or before May 18, 2012. See United States v. Jones, 2010 WL 4940427, *1
(D.Nev. 2010) requiring the government to disclose Rule 404(b) evidence thirty days
before trial.
14.
Evidence of conviction of a crime which the government seeks
to introduce at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 609 shall be disclosed on or before
May 31, 2012.
The government is directed to certify at or before the final pretrial
conference presently set for May 30, 2012 at 9:00 AM, that all discovery required by
law and this Order has been provided to the defense.
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
5
Pretrial Motions Deadlines
Motion Deadline
Response Deadline
Motions related to discovery
March 22, 2012
March 30, 2012
Motion challenging the indictment
or statutes involved; motions for
bill of particulars
March 22, 2012
March 30, 2012
Motions to suppress evidence;
motion to disclose confidential
informants; motions challenging
admissibility of evidence
March 26, 2012
April 5, 2012
Motions to sever;
motions in limine
March 22, 2012
April 2, 2012
Motions related to experts
May 4, 2012
May 11, 2012
Given the lengthy time provided by the trial court for the completion of
discovery and presentation of pretrial issues, no continuances of the pretrial motions
due dates will be granted absent extraordinary circumstances.
Further Disclosures
All disclosures required by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, shall be
produced by the government no later than June 1, 2012.
Both the government and defense have a continuing duty to disclose
any additional evidence or material discovered before or during trial if the federal
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
6
rules or this Court’s order requires its production. Such evidence must be promptly
disclosed to the other party or the Court.
If a party fails to comply with this discovery order, the Court may order
that discovery or inspection occur by a certain date and in a certain manner; grant
a continuance; prohibit the offending party from introducing the undisclosed
evidence at trial; or enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.
DATED this 15th day of March, 2012, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge
12-cr-002-TMB-JDR AMENDED Discovery and Pretrial Motion Order_mtd.wpd
7
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?