The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Blanche M. Manning
Defendant Tralvis Edmond has filed a pretrial motion seeking the disclosure of exculpatory and favorable evidence [15-1]. The motion consists of several subparts. For the reasons that follow, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.
Favorable or Exculpatory Evidence
Edmond has moved for the disclosure of any previously undisclosed favorable evidence and evidence that bears upon the credibility of witnesses. In response, the government has acknowledged its continuing obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) to disclose information that may be exculpatory or impeaching, and has committed to producing that evidence in a timely manner.
Given the government's assurances that it will comply with its obligations under Brady and Giglio, Edmond's request must be denied as moot. See United States v. Silesia Flavorings, Inc., No. 03 CR 851, 2004 WL 419904, at *6 (N. D. Ill. Mar. 1, 2004) (government's promise to comply with Brady rendered motion for exculpatory or impeaching evidence moot).
Names, Address, and Interviews of Co-Schemers or Cooperating Individuals
Next, Edmond seeks the "name, last known address and statement or memorandum of interview, if any, of any individual, including any co-schemer or cooperating individual, whose testimony would be favorable to Mr. Edmond." Motion [15-1] at 2. The government responds that it has already produced the "statement or memorandum of interview" of any such witnesses and, therefore, the request for statements or memoranda of interview is denied as moot. See Silesia Flavorings, 2004 WL 419904, at *6.
In response to Edmond's request for last known addresses, the government contends that the request is tantamount to a request for a witness list, which it is not required to produce in a non-capital case. See United States v. Braxton, 877 F.2d 556, 560 (7th Cir. 1989). However, Edmond has requested addresses only for individuals "whose testimony would be favorable to Mr. Edmond in any way or consistent with Mr. Edmond's innocence." Motion [15-1] at 2.
Contact information for exculpatory witnesses falls within the scope of Brady. See United States v. Steele, No. 99-2129, 2000 WL 796191, at *4 (7th Cir. June 15, 2000) (unpublished). Accordingly, the government shall comply with its obligation to provide such information.
Information about the Confidential Source Used to Procure Search Warrant
Edmond requests disclosure of the identity of the government's confidential informant, along with the names and numbers of any other cases in which the informant provided confidential information to the government, or was himself a defendant. A defendant is entitled to know the identities of government informants only if disclosure is "essential" to a fair trial, and outweighs the public's interest in preserving the informant's anonymity and encouraging citizens to report crimes. United States v. Jefferson, 252 F.3d 937, 940-42 (7th Cir. 2001).
Edmond has identified no reason for his request and, therefore, has failed to establish a genuine need for the information he has requested. See United States v. Bender, 5 F.3d 267, 271 (7th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, his motion for the identity of and other information about the government's confidential source is denied without prejudice.
Motion for Santiago Proffer
Edmond has moved for an order requiring the government to produce statements made by any alleged coconspirators four weeks before trial. The government has agreed to provide a written Santiago proffer, ...