Free Motion to Compel - District Court of Arizona - Arizona

! "
. ll,
l _ the defendants. As it will lessen confusion and avoid delay, the government will provide the
2 \ ‘ ;u;_;_ with a redacted form of this Amended Memorandum.
3 J Order, this Court concluded that in this matter, government counsel had made
4 ____. I': s on the status of disclosure and the government’s obligations under Rule 16 that were
5 I; imes "inaccurate, inconsistent and . . . legally incorrect." [Order at p. 1.] After a thorough I
I 6 I l; iew of the entire matter, the government must acknowledge that it made several assertions
7 E the status of discovery that were inaccurate. The government also made assertions about
8 coverlat were inconsistent with other prior statements, including some promises it simply
9 ‘ g ‘¤ not keep regarding timing of review and disclosure of materials from the Nevada
10 __ estigation. The government makes no excuses for those misstatements and accepts full
11 -ponsibility—the errors are exactly as this Court sees them to be. The government’s sole
12 ponse is to have rectified its deficiencies in disclosure.
13 This Court also correctly concluded that the government’s statements concerning its
14 closure obligations under Rule 16 were "sometimes legally incorrect." This Court identified
15 in its Order two such statements of government counsel. The first, made during the fourth case
16 ·· ;*_L_· · ment conference in this matter, involved counsel’s assertion that the government could
17 pld all ofthe material compiled in the Nevada investigation "for a long time." The second
18 ,_| nt at issue, made during the fifth case management conference in this matter, again
19 the Nevada investigation materials, was as follows:
20 El a practical matter, tithe overnmentl can walk _in here a couple of days before trial
= ‘ I can give [the de ensei everythinv at that point. That’s not what l’ve tried to do
21 _ _ that’s not what I want to do. But tire law will support me on that under Rule 16."
22 m t- .at p. 7] Counsel’s statements were legally incorrect because some ofthe items then in
23 if:. - ernment’s possession (in the district of Nevada) were material to preparing the defense
24 I in this matter and or intended for use in the government’s case-in—chief, and were not otherwise
25 exempted from disclosure by either Rule l6(a)(2) or Jer-zcks. Thus, as to those few items, the
26 government had no right to delay disclosure until near trial or otherwise.
27 Of particular import to this Memorandum, and to the Criminal Chief’s upcoming Rule 16
Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC Document 1228-2 Filed O2/15/2006 Page1 oft

Case 2:03-cr-01167-DGC

Document 1228-2

Filed 02/15/2006

Page 1 of 1