Myers v. United States
15 A.3d 688
| D.C. | 2011Background
- appellant was convicted of assault after a non-jury trial in D.C. Superior Court.
- the incident occurred on a WMATA Metro X2 bus in July 2008 and involved a knife threat.
- a digital video recording (DVR) of the incident existed on the WMATA bus but WMATA policy erases after 80 hours.
- defense moved to compel production of the DVR, arguing Rule 16 preservation and disclosure violations.
- trial court found the DVR was not in the government's possession and denied dismissal, convicting appellant.
- appellant challenges the conviction on the basis that the government failed to preserve and disclose the WMATA DVR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA video was in government possession for Rule 16. | Myers contends WMATA DVR was government possession. | Prosecution argues WMATA was not a governmental agent; no possession. | No Rule 16 violation; WMATA not in government's possession. |
| Whether WMATA is part of the prosecution team for discovery duties. | WMATA functions are governmental, thus discovery duty applies. | WMATA acted proprietarily; no prosecution-team involvement. | WMATA not part of the prosecution team; no duty to preserve. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bryant, 439 F.2d 642 (D.C. Cir. 1971) (duty to preserve evidence; possession for Rule 16/ Brady/ Jencks)
- Allen v. United States, 649 A.2d 548 (D.C.1994) (antecedent duty to preserve discoverable evidence)
- Robinson v. United States, 825 A.2d 318 (D.C.2003) (government-wide duty to disclose; includes investigative agencies)
- Guest v. United States, 867 A.2d 208 (D.C.2005) ( Brady/Rule 16/Jencks reasoning applied to discovery requests)
- Velasquez v. United States, 801 A.2d 72 (D.C.2002) ( Brady/Jencks/Rule 16 disclosure principles)
- Morris v. WMATA, 251 A.App.D.C. 42 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (WMATA functions can be governmental or proprietary; involvement of transit police affects status)