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. McNew

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


January 7, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KRISTOPHER DENEIL MCNEW, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter comes before the Court on defendant Kristopher Deneil McNew's motion for discovery (Doc. 9).

First, the motion cites inapplicable law. The motion relies on Illinois Supreme Court Rule 412, which does not apply in federal court. In federal court, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16 and constitutional due process regarding exculpatory material define the extent of the limited discovery required. To the extent that the defendant requests material required to be produced pursuant to Rule 16, the requests are moot in light of the government's open file policy and absent an indication that the government is not complying with that rule. To the extent that the defendant requests material required to be produced by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), or Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), the government has acknowledged its continuing obligations under those cases. It has been repeatedly held that where the government has made assurances it will comply with Giglio and Brady, those assurances are sufficient. See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 283 n. 23 (1999); see, e.g., United States v. Alex, 791 F. Supp. 723, 729 (N.D. Ill. 1992). To the extent that the defendant requests information beyond that required to be produced under Rule 16, Brady or Giglio, the request is overbroad.

Furthermore, the Court's Order for Pre-Trial Discovery and Inspection (Doc. 14) instructs the parties to attempt to resolve discovery disputes without recourse to the Court. If the parties have tried to resolve their disputes and have been unable to do so, the Court allows them to file a motion for discovery and a brief in support of the motion within 28 days of the arraignment. Any motion filed with the Court must contain a statement that a discovery conference was held and that agreement could not be reached concerning the discovery or inspection that is the subject of the motion. The defendant has not complied with this order in that he failed to include the statements required regarding attempts to resolve discovery disputes without recourse to the Court.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES the motion for discovery (Doc. 9). IT IS SO ORDERED.

20090107

© 1992-2009 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.