Free Motion for Discovery - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cr-03192-IEG

Document 10-2

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 1 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

L AW O FFICE OF K URT D AVID H ERMANSEN Kurt David Hermansen, Cal. Bar No. 166349 110 West C Street, Suite 1810 San Diego, California 92101-3909 Telephone: (619) 236-8300 Facsimile: (619) 236-8400 Cellular: (619) 436-8117 [email protected] Attorney for Defendant GUILLERMO GARCIA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. GUILLERMO GARCIA, Defendant.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case No. 07cr3192 IEG MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND A U T H O R IT IE S IN S U P P O R T O F DEFENDANT'S MOTIONS

I.

STATEMENT OF FACTS In 07cr3192 IEG, Mr. GARCIA is charged in a four-count Indictment filed November 7,

2007 charging conspiracy, unlawful discharge of pollutants, unlawful disposal of hazardous waste and failure to report a release of a hazardous substance. II. MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY Defendant moves for the production of discovery pursuant to F ED. R. C RIM. P. 12(b)(4) and 16. This request is not limited to items the prosecutor knows of, but rather includes all discovery listed below that is in the custody, control, care, or knowledge of any investigative or other governmental agencies closely connected to the prosecution. See Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995); United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032, 1035 (9th Cir. 1989).

\\D 2p5p6d1\kur t's cp u \_ K D H - d o cs\M O T N S\Fe d \H a za rd o u s W a ste \M e m PA d isc o G A R CIA . w p d

-1-

07cr3192 IEG

Case 3:07-cr-03192-IEG

Document 10-2

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 2 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

1.

Defendant's Statements. The Government must reveal all written/oral

statements made by Defendant, regardless of whether the Government intends to make any use of those statements. See F ED. R. C RIM. P. 16(a)(1)(A); id. advisory committee's note (1991 amendments); see also United States v. Bailleaux, 685 F.2d 1105, 1113-14 (9th Cir. 1982). 2. Personnel Records of Government Officers Involved in the Interrogation.

Defendant moves for production of all citizen complaints and other related internal affairs documents involving any of the immigration officers or other law enforcement officers who were involved in the investigation, arrest and interrogation of Defendant. See Pitchess v. Superior Court, 11 Cal. 3d 531, 539 (1974). Because of the sensitive nature of these documents, defense counsel will be unable to procure them from any other source. 3. Government Examination of Law Enforcement Personnel Files --

Especially the Personnel Files and All Files Pertaining to the Interrogating Officers. Defendant requests that the Government examine the personnel files and any other files within its custody, care or control, or which could be obtained by the government, for all testifying witnesses, including testifying officers. Defendant requests the attorney for the Government review these files for evidence of perjury or other similar dishonesty, or any other material relevant to impeachment, or any information that is exculpatory, pursuant to its duty under United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29, 30-31 (9th Cir. 1991). The obligation to examine files arises by virtue of the defense making a demand for their review. The Ninth Circuit in Henthorn remanded for in camera review of the agents' files because the government failed to examine the files of agents who testified at trial. This Court should therefore order the Government to review all such files for all testifying witnesses and turn over any material relevant to impeachment or that is exculpatory to Defendant before trial. Defendant specifically requests that the prosecutor, not the law enforcement officers, review the files in this case. The duty to review the files, under Henthorn, should be the prosecutor's. Only the prosecutor has the legal knowledge and ethical obligations to fully comply with this request. See United States v. Jennings, 960 F.2d 1488, 1492 (9th Cir. 1992); see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 438, 437 (1995) (prosecutors have "a

\\D 2p5p6d1\kur t's cp u \_ K D H - d o cs\M O T N S\Fe d \H a za rd o u s W a ste \M e m PA d isc o G A R CIA . w p d

-2-

07cr3192 IEG

Case 3:07-cr-03192-IEG

Document 10-2

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 3 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police"). 4. Arrest Reports, Notes and Dispatch Tapes & Radio Traffic. Defendant also

specifically moves for a copy of all arrest reports, notes, dispatch or any other tapes, and TECS records that relate to the circumstances surrounding Defendant's arrest or any questioning. This request includes any rough notes, records, reports, transcripts or other documents in which Defendant's statements or any other discoverable material is contained. 5. Brady Material. Defendant moves for a copy of all documents, statements,

agents' reports, and tangible evidence favorable to Defendant on the issue of guilt or which affects the credibility of the Government's witnesses and case. Under Brady, impeachment and exculpatory evidence constitutes evidence favorable to the accused. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676-78 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 102-06 (1976). 6. Defendant's Prior Record. Under F ED. R. C RIM. P. 16(a)(1)(B), Defendant

specifically moves for a copy of Defendant's prior criminal record within the possession, custody, or control of the government. Defendant specifically requests that the copy be complete and legible; faint, obscured or otherwise illegible copies of rap sheets are not acceptable. 7. Any Proposed 404(b) Evidence. The government must produce evidence

of "other acts" under F ED. R. C RIM. P. 16(a)(1)(C) and F ED. R. E VID. 404(b), 609. See United States v. Vega, 188 F.3d 1150, 1154 (9th Cir. 1999) (holding that Rule 404(b) "applies to all `other acts,' not just bad acts"). This request includes any TECS records the Government intends to introduce at trial, whether in its case-in-chief, for possible impeachment, or in rebuttal. Id. In addition, under Rule 404(b), Defendant specifically requests the government "provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . of the general nature" of any evidence the government proposes to introduce under F ED. R. E VID. 404(b) at trial. See id. at 1154-55.

Additionally, Defendant requests that such notice be given three weeks before trial to give the defense time to adequately investigate and prepare for trial. 8. TECS Reports. Defendant moves for all TECS reports. Rule 404(b)

"applies to all `other acts,' not just bad acts." Vega, 188 F.3d at 1154; see F ED. R .E VID. 404(b).

\\D 2p5p6d1\kur t's cp u \_ K D H - d o cs\M O T N S\Fe d \H a za rd o u s W a ste \M e m PA d isc o G A R CIA . w p d

-3-

07cr3192 IEG

Case 3:07-cr-03192-IEG

Document 10-2

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 4 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

9.

Evidence Seized. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(C), the defense moves

for a copy of discovery of evidence seized as a result of any search. 10. Tangible Objects. Under Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2)(C), Defendant specific-

ally requests the opportunity to inspect and copy and test, if necessary, all documents and tangible objects, including any books, papers, photographs, buildings, automobiles, or places, or copies, depictions, or portions thereof which are material to the defense or intended for use in the government's case-in-chief, or were obtained from or belong to Defendant. 11. Evidence of Criminal Investigation of Any Government Witness. Defend-

ant moves for production of any evidence that any prospective witness is under investigation by federal, state or local authorities for any criminal conduct. 12. Jencks Act Material. Defendant moves for production in advance of trial

of all material, including dispatch tapes, which the Government must produce pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and F ED. R. C RIM. P. 26.2. Advance production will avoid the possibility of delay at the request of defendant to investigate the Jencks material. A verbal acknowledgment that "rough" notes constitute an accurate account of the witness' interview is sufficient for the report or notes to qualify as a statement under § 3500(e)(1). Campbell v. United States, 373 U.S. 487, 490-92 (1963). 13. Expert Summaries. Defendant moves for production of written summaries

of all expert testimony the Government intends to present under Federal Rules of Evidence 702, 703 or 705 during its case-in-chief, written summaries of the bases for each expert's opinion, and written summaries of the experts' qualifications. F ED. R. C RIM. P. 16(a)(1)(E)-(G). 14. Reports of Scientific Tests or Examinations. Under Fed. R. Crim. P.

16(a)(1)(D), Defendant moves for discovery of the reports of all tests and examinations conducted upon the evidence in this case, including but not limited to any fingerprint analyses or chemical tests that are within the possession, custody, or control of the government, the existence of which is known, or by the exercise of due diligence may become known, to the attorney for the government, and which are material to the preparation of the defense or which are intended for use by the government as evidence-in-chief at trial.

\\D 2p5p6d1\kur t's cp u \_ K D H - d o cs\M O T N S\Fe d \H a za rd o u s W a ste \M e m PA d isc o G A R CIA . w p d

-4-

07cr3192 IEG

Case 3:07-cr-03192-IEG

Document 10-2

Filed 12/04/2007

Page 5 of 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 V.

15.

Residual Request. Defendant intends by this discovery motion to invoke

the right to discovery to the fullest extent possible under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Constitution and laws of the United States. This request specifically includes all subsections of Rule 16. Defendant requests that the Government provide Defendant and his attorney with the above requested material sufficiently in advance of trial to avoid unnecessary delay before trial and before cross-examination. III. MOTION TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE Request for Preservation of Evidence. Defendant specifically moves for the preservation of all dispatch tapes and any other physical evidence that may be destroyed, lost, or otherwise put out of the possession, custody, or care of the Government and which relates to the arrest or the events leading to the arrest in this case. See Riley, 189 F.3d at 806-08. Defendant further requests that the government be ordered to question all the agencies and individuals involved in the prosecution and investigation of this case to determine if such evidence exists, and if it does exist to instruct those parties to preserve it. This request also includes any material or percipient witness who might be deported or is otherwise likely to become unavailable (e.g., undocumented aliens and transients). IV. LEAVE TO FILE FURTHER MOTIONS Defendant hereby requests leave to file further motions as may be necessary. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court grant the foregoing motions. Dated: December 4, 2007 s/Kurt David Hermansen Attorney for Defendant Email: [email protected]

\\D 2p5p6d1\kur t's cp u \_ K D H - d o cs\M O T N S\Fe d \H a za rd o u s W a ste \M e m PA d isc o G A R CIA . w p d

-5-

07cr3192 IEG