United States v. Astacio-Espino, 783 F. Supp. 2d 287

Defendant Astacio-Espino is charged with destruction of an aircraft, using a firearm in aid of a crime, endangering an aircraft, and possession of a machine gun.
The government certified the offenses carry a potential death penalty and the case was identified as capital; detention finding noted flight risk and danger to the community.
defendant moved to compel discovery including FBI 302s, agent notes, expert materials, a 2007 police brutality FBI report, Jencks Act materials, and a helicopter GPS/“black box.”
The government redacted portions of FBI 302s to protect interviewees; the court ordered in camera review and later denied unredacted disclosures except as required for later stages.
The court ordered ex parte provision of additional facts about the government’s status-conference statement regarding potential involvement by an informant, to resolve Brady concerns.
The court denied most requests: Jencks Act materials not yet subject to disclosure, no GPS “black box” exists, and no identities of redacted witnesses were required at this stage.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Brady requires disclosure of redacted FBI 302 identities	Astacio-Espino contends identities and background are Brady material for impeachment.	Astacio-Espino argues witnesses' identities should be disclosed for defense evaluation.	Denial; identities need not be disclosed before trial; redacted material suffices for impeachment prep.
Whether the government must disclose Jencks Act materials now	Jencks materials should be produced pre-authorization stage due to capital context.	Jencks Act materials are not available until witness testimony; not subject to early discovery.	Denied; Jencks materials not subject to pre-trial disclosure at this stage.
Whether the helicopter 'black box' or GPS data must be produced	Request for minute-by-minute location data could aid defense.	No such device exists; no further certification needed.	Denied; no black box or GPS device exists.
Whether the 2007 FBI police brutality report should be produced	Report could provide mitigating evidence and relevant context.	Insufficient detail and relevance; burden not shown.	Denied without prejudice pending a renewed, well-supported motion.
Whether the government must disclose additional expert materials beyond Rule 16	Additional expert materials should be produced for defense preparation.	Rule 16 provides adequate discovery; no broader production needed.	Denied; as to beyond Rule 16 obligations and Jencks Act scope.

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose exculpatory evidence in government possession)
Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (U.S. 1976) (standard for material exculpatory evidence)
Huddleston, 194 F.3d 214 (1st Cir. 1999) (impeachment and Brady material boundaries)
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (U.S. 1995) (duty to investigate favorable evidence; materiality of Brady materials)
Dumas, 207 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2000) (impeachment evidence and materiality within Brady)
Ruiz v. United States, 221 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D. Mass. 2002) (Brady and discovery considerations in federal cases)
United States v. Rodriguez-Rivera, 473 F.3d 21 (1st Cir. 2007) (limits and scope of discovery in criminal cases)
United States v. Caro-Muñiz, 406 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2005) (pretrial discovery standards in the First Circuit)
Ortiz-Garcia, 553 F. Supp. 2d 119 (D.P.R. 2008) (court's discretion to compel witness lists pre-trial in capital contexts)