Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. PELINI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, EASTERN DIVISION


August 22, 1995

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
GUIDO CICERO PELINI and JAMES VINCENT MOCCIO, SR., Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: ALESIA

ORDER

 Before the court are the pretrial motions of defendant Guido Cicero Pelini, considered in turn:

 I. MOTION RESERVING THE RIGHT TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS

 Said motion is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. If defendant wishes to file additional motions he must present a motion to file additional motions alleging good cause for excusing the waiver. Local Criminal Rule 12(f); United States v. Messino, 855 F. Supp. 955, 971 (N.D. Ill. 1994).

 II. MOTION TO ADOPT CO-DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

 Said motion is DENIED pursuant to this court's practice. See United States v. Messino, 855 F. Supp. 955, 971 (N.D. Ill. 1994); United States v. Sims, 808 F. Supp. 596, 602 (N.D. Ill. 1992).

 III. MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF GRAND JURY PROCEEDINGS

 Defendant's motion is entirely conclusory. As the government notes, all authority supporting the relief requested requires a particular showing by defendant. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e)(3)(C)(ii) provides for disclosure "when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury." The Supreme Court has in turn required a showing of "particularized need." United States v. Sells Engineering, Inc., 463 U.S. 418, 443, 103 S. Ct. 3133, 3148, 77 L. Ed. 2d 743 (1983).

 Defendant has made no attempt to make any such showing. Accordingly, in this regard, the motion is DENIED in part.

 To the extent the motion sought Grand Jury identification, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT, because the government has made said disclosure.

 IV. MOTION TO REQUIRE THE GOVERNMENT TO FURNISH ALL GUIDELINE INFORMATION ABOUT DEFENDANT PELINI

 Defendant provides no basis in any rule, statute or case for his request. The government, on the other hand, has persuasive authority against such a request. The court is persuaded by the reasoning of Magistrate Judge Boyce in United States v. Wagner, 149 F.R.D. 217 (D. Utah 1993), where the magistrate judge could find no constitutional, statutory or rule-based authority for such a request. See also United States v. Barrett, 890 F.2d 855, 865 (6th Cir. 1989).

 The motion is DENIED.

 V. MOTION TO PRESERVE HANDWRITTEN NOTES OF GOVERNMENT AGENTS

 The government has agreed to defendant's request. Accordingly, said motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

 VI. MOTION TO REQUIRE NOTICE OF INTENTION TO USE OTHER CRIMES, WRONGS, OR ACTS EVIDENCE

 Defendant seeks an order requiring the government to provide notice of FED. R. EVID. 404(b) "other crimes, wrongs, or acts" and FED. R. EVID. 608(b) "specific instances of conduct."

 Regarding Rule 404(b), the government has agreed to provide said notice three weeks before trial, which satisfies the Rule 404(b) reasonableness requirement. In that regard, therefore, the motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

 Regarding Rule 608(b), the government notes there is no authority for a disclosure order. Nor does defendant provide any cases supporting his position. This court previously has concluded that requests such as this one are not supported by authority, see United States v. Sims, 808 F. Supp. 607, 611 (N.D. Ill. 1992), and defendant has provided no reason to depart from that holding. In that regard, therefore, the motion is DENIED.

 VII. MOTION FOR A LIST OF WITNESSES

 No authority exists directing such an order, as this court has repeatedly held. E.g., United States v. Messino, 855 F. Supp. 955, 966-67 (N.D. Ill. 1994). Nor has defendant provided any specific reason for the court to issue such an order in its discretion. See id.

 Accordingly, the motion is DENIED.

 VIII. MOTION THAT THE GOVERNMENT BE REQUIRED TO MAKE A SANTIAGO PROFFER

 The government has provided a Santiago proffer, so said motion is DENIED AS MOOT.

 CONCLUSION

 Defendant Pelini's Motion Reserving the Right to File Additional Motions is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendant's Motion to Adopt Co-Defendant's Motions is DENIED. Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury Proceedings is DENIED in part and DENIED AS MOOT in part. Defendant's Motion to Require the Government to Furnish All Guideline Information About Defendant Pelini is DENIED. Defendant's Motion to Preserve Handwritten Notes of Government Agents is DENIED AS MOOT. Defendant's Motion to Require Notice of Intention to Use Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts Evidence is DENIED AS MOOT in part and DENIED in part. Defendant's Motion for a List of Witnesses is DENIED. Defendant's Motion that the Government Be Required to Make a Santiago Proffer is DENIED AS MOOT.

 JAMES H. ALESIA

 United States District Judge

 Date: AUG 22 1995

19950822

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.