IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
December 21, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
BRYANT GILES, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge:
Before the Court is Defendant Giles's Motion for Disclosure of Accused (Doc. 68). Specifically, Defendant Giles seeks numerous discovery materials from the Government. Defendant Giles's attorney was recently retained and entered his notice of appearance at the time of the filing of this motion. In his motion Defendant Giles seeks various, generalized discovery materials, including various written and recorded statements of potential witnesses and any reports of experts. The Government responds that it has recently turned over discovery materials to Defendant's new attorney, but that his attorney has not requested any additional discovery materials from the Government. As stated in the Order for Pretrial Discovery and Inspection, "[i]f additional discovery is sought, the party seeking it shall confer with opposing counsel...and attempt to satisfy these requests in a cooperative atmosphere without the involvement by the Court. The request may be oral or written and the opposing counsel shall respond in like manner" (Doc. 50).
The Government argues that Defendant's attorney has failed to request any additional discovery and that prior to filing a motion for disclosure, Defendant's attorney should have made a request for additional discovery to the Government. The Court agrees with the Government. If additional discovery is sought, Defendant's attorney should try to work out the issue with the Government before seeking the Court's involvement. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion for disclosure of the accused (Doc. 69).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed this 21st day of December, 2010.
2010.12.21 13:39:50 -06'00'
David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.