Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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


October 24, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: DAVID HERNDON, District Judge


I. Introduction

Before the Court are several motions submitted by Defendant Travis Norman. (Docs. 83, 84, 85, 88, 89, 90 and 92.) Defendant moves (a) to suppress the contents of government electronic surveillance (Doc. 83); (b) for "government agents to retain rough notes" (Doc. 84); (c) to compel a response to previously filed motions, or, in the alternative, to "prohibit the government from using any evidence at trial which might have been disclosed" (Doc. 85); (d) for a bill of particulars (Doc. 88); (e) for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(4)(B) (Doc. 89); (f) to exclude evidence "not provided by [the] government," or, in the alternative, "for the government to affirmatively state that it has followed the precepts of Brady v. Maryland, Strickler v. Greene and Kyles v. Whitley" (Doc. 90); and (g) "to compel the government to follow the law regarding production of wiretap information" (Doc. 92). The government responds in opposition to Motions (b), (d), (e), (f), and (g), above. (Doc. 93.)

  II. Analysis

  A. Suppression (Doc. 83)

  Defendant filed his Motion to Suppress on March 29, 2005, less than three weeks prior to the date on which trial was originally scheduled, before it was continued twice. (Doc. 83.) At the time Defendant filed his Motion, he did not possess any of the alleged unlawfully obtained documents; indeed, as he notes, his Motion was filed out of "an abundance of caution." (Doc. 83, p. 1.) As a result, Defendant provides no case-specific reason why the Court should suppress "any and all electronic surveillance." (Doc. 83.) Before a hearing on a motion to suppress is warranted, a defendant must present "definite, specific, detailed and nonconjectural" facts supporting his motion to suppress. United States v. Hamm, 786 F.2d 804, 807 (7th Cir. 1986). Defendant has presented no such facts. Accordingly, a hearing on Defendant's motion is unnecessary. The Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Suppress Electronic Surveillance. (Doc. 83.)

  B. Preservation of Rough Notes (Doc. 84)

  Defendant asks the Court to require the government to instruct its agents to preserve all rough notes related to this case. (Doc. 84.) Defendant bases this request on both the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the "Act"), and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The Jencks Act compels the government's production of statements that a government witness has signed or otherwise adopted or approved, and which relate to the subject matter of the witness's testimony. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a)-(b). The Act defines a statement as "(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted by him; (2) a . . . substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or (3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcrip tion thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury." 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e). Brady requires a prosecutor to disclose materials to the Defendant that will aid her. Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.

  The Court finds Defendant's request overbroad. The Jencks Act only requires disclosure, after a witness testifies, of statements sign ed, adopted, or approved by the witness relating to the subject matter of the witness's testimony. See 18 U.S.C . § 3500(a)-(b). Notes later incorporated into a report need not be preserved after they have served their purpose in the preparation of interview reports. United States v. Harris, 542 F.2d 1283, 1293 (7th Cir. 1976). Moreover, "notes and summaries of witness statements that are neither adopted by the witness nor substantial verbatim recitals of what the witness said are deemed un reliable under the [Jencks Act] and need not be produced." United States v. Morrison, 946 F.2d 484, 494-95 (7th Cir. 1991). Defendant asks the Court to order the government to retain both types of notes. The Court declines. While government agents may not, in bad faith, destroy documents that later must be disclosed pursuant to the Jenks Act, Defendant's request is simply too broad. Defendant's Motion for Government Agents to Retain Rough Notes is therefore DENIED. (Doc. 84.)

  C. Compel a Response (Doc. 85)

  Because the Court has already ruled on the motions to which Defendant seeks a response, the Court DENIES Defendant's Motion to Compel a Response, as moot. (Doc. 85.)

  D. Bill of Particulars (Doc. 88)

  The Court finds Defendant's Motion for a Bill of Particulars (Doc. 88) inappropriate. A bill of particulars is necessary when the charges in an indictment are so general that they fail to apprise the defendant of the specific act of which he is accused. United States v. Andrus, 775 F.2d 825, 843 (7th Cir. 1985). Here, the indictment contains a clear and unambiguous description of the charges. (Doc. 12.) The indictment further indicates the time frame in which the conspiracy allegedly operated and the names of the ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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