United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division
D. Whitney, Chief United States District Judge
MATTER is before the Court on the Government's
Motion for Proposed Trial Groupings (Doc. No. 813), several
Defendants' motions to continue trial, and several
pretrial motions regarding discovery issues filed by multiple
Defendants. The Court finds it appropriate to issue one
case-wide order ruling on the administrative motions
regarding trial groupings and trial continuances. Moreover,
this combined order is appropriate because the pretrial
motions regarding discovery are related, and because the
Court wants to ensure counsel for all Defendants abide by
this case's standard criminal discovery order.
as to the Government's Motion for Proposed Trial
Groupings (Doc. No. 813), the Court notes it has discussed
the merits and objections to this motion during several
status conferences, including those held on October 25, 2017;
December 4, 2017; and January 31, 2018. The Court issues this
written ruling in order to memorialize the oral rulings
issued during those status conferences. Accordingly, the
Government's Motion for Proposed Trial Groupings (Doc.
No. 813) is GRANTED subject to any modifications made during
the status conferences. In so ruling, the Court DENIES the
motion to sever filed by Defendant Mitchell (Doc. No.
the Court reserves its right to modify or combine the trial
groupings for purposes of judicial economy. In light of this
ruling, the Court also DENIES Defendants' Motions
“for Disclosure of Codefendants to be Joined at Trial
and for Clarification of Trial Date” (Doc. No. 1149,
1169). The trial groupings and trial settings will be further
addressed during the Court's status conference set for
March 19, 2018.
the Court turns to several motions to continue trial in this
matter, many of which have also been the subject of the
Court's oral rulings during the status conferences
identified above. This Order serves to memorialize those
rulings on the docket. For the reasons stated in open Court
noting that the ends of justice are served by continuing
trial, the Court GRANTS the following motions to continue
(Docs. Nos. 882, 887, 958, 970, 986, 987, 994, 1017, 1025)
and DENIES Defendant Gilmore's “Motion for Speedy
Trial and Objection to Continuance” (Docs. Nos. 995,
several Defendants have filed motions seeking a Court order
compelling the Government to produce certain materials in
discovery. Rule 16 generally governs discovery in criminal
cases and requires the Government to “make available to
the defendant any requested items that are ‘material to
preparing the defense.'” United States v.
Caro, 597 F.3d 608, 621 (4th Cir. 2010) (quoting Fed. R.
Defendants move the Court to compel the Government to comply
with its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373
U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150 (1972), and their progeny. Defendants also seek evidence
the Government intends to offer at trial pursuant to Federal
Rule of Evidence 404(b). As the Government notes in response
to these motions, the Standard Criminal Discovery Order
entered in this case already addresses these motions.
regards to the motions related to Brady and
Giglio material, the Standard Criminal Discovery
Order provides, in relevant part:
2. The government shall disclose to defense counsel all
Brady material which is in the possession, custody
or control of the government, the existence of which is known
or by the exercise of due diligence should become known to
the attorney for the government. Disclosure under this
paragraph will include the following:
A. Evidence or information specifically requested by the
defendant which is favorable to the accused and
“material either to guilt or to punishment.”
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963).
Accord United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 106
(1976); Sennett v. Sheriff of Fairfax County, 608
F.2d 537 (4th Cir. 1979). But cf. United States v.
Billups, 692 F.2d 320, 325-26 (4th Cir. 1982)
(defendant's twenty-five Brady requests too general to
constitute “specific request” for documents
withheld by the government).
B. Evidence or information, whether or not specifically
requested by the defense, which is of sufficient probative
value as to create a reasonable doubt of the guilt or which
tends to exculpate the accused. See United States v.
Agurs, supra; Hamric v. Bailey, 386
F.2d 390, 393 (4th Cir. 1967); and Barbee v.
Warden, Maryland Penitentiary, 331 F.2d 842 (4th
C. Evidence or information indicating that the
prosecution's case includes perjured testimony. See
Alcorta v. Texas, 355 U.S. 28 (1957); and Campbell
v. Reed, 594 F.2d 4 (4th Cir. 1979).
D. Evidence or information tending to discredit or impeach
the credibility of a government witness, including plea
agreements and prior criminal records (if known to the
government). See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150, 154-55 (1972); Gordon v. United States, 344
U.S. 414 (1953); Chavis v. North Carolina, 637 F.2d
213 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Sutton, 542
F.2d 1239 (4th Cir. 1976); and Boone v. Paderick,
541 F.2d 447 (4th Cir. 1976).
Standard Criminal Discovery Order also provides for the
timely disclosure of evidence the Government intends to offer