Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

United States v. Covens

March 23, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
TERRELL COVENS, ET AL.,



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Samuel Der-yeghiayan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This matter is before the court on Defendants' pre-trial motions. For the reasons stated below, we grant in part and deny in part the Defendants' pre-trial motions.

DISCUSSION

I. Motions to Adopt

Defendants Trevel Covens, Randall Brewster, Kendall Brewster, Kanyati Jordan, Kenneth Starks, Johneak Johnson, Rita Hemphill, Shalonda Brown, Louis Eubanks, Samuel Harris, Shaun James, Shanta James, Prentice Earl, Jermaine Harris, David Harris, Rodney Willett, Kenneth Sykes, Jacqueline Holman, Octavia Logan, and Gary Covens request to adopt the statements of co-defendants. The Government does not object to Defendants' motions. Therefore, we grant the motions.

II. Disclosure of Brady Materials

Defendants request that the court order the Government to disclose any evidence that is favorable to the defense in accordance with Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Defendants have not shown that the Government has failed to produce requested information that is favorable to their defense. Also, the Government indicates that it has produced all such information and it will continue to do so if the Government becomes aware of additional information. Therefore, we deny the motions for the disclosure of favorable evidence as moot and, to the extent that Defendants seek such a disclosure earlier, we deny the motions on their merits.

III. Disclosure of Giglio Materials

Defendants also request that the court order the Government to disclose certain evidence in accordance with Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972). The Government agrees to produce the evidence required in accordance with Giglio. To the extent that Defendants seek the production of the identity of confidential informants, Defendants have not provided sufficient justification to warrant ordering such a disclosure. See Dole v. Local 1942, Intern. Broth. of Elec. Workers, AFLCIO, 870 F.2d 368, 372 (7th Cir. 1989)(stating that the confidential informant privilege "yields when the identification of the informant or of a communication is essential to a balanced measure of the issues and the fair administration of justice"). Therefore, we deny the motions for the disclosure of Giglio evidence in part as moot and in part on the merits of the motions and, to the extent that Defendants seek such a disclosure earlier, we also deny the motions on their merits.

IV. Motions to Provide Santiago Proffer

Defendants also request that the court order the Government to file a proffer relating to the statements of co-conspirators. The Government has agreed that it will file its Santiago proffer two weeks prior to trial, which is sufficient time to allow Defendants to prepare for trial. Therefore, we deny the motions as moot, and, to the extent that Defendants seek such a disclosure earlier, we also deny the motions on their merits.

V. Motions for Co-conspirators' Statements

Defendants request that the Government disclose the statements of any co- conspirators it will rely on at trial. The Government indicates that it has already some produced information in accordance with 18 U.S.C. ยง 3500, including statements of co-conspirators, and that it will file its Santiago proffer two weeks prior to trial, which is sufficient time to allow Defendants to prepare for trial. Therefore, the motions are denied as ...


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.