United States v. Brown
0:23-cr-00160
| D. Minnesota | Dec 27, 2024Background
- Defendants (Gregory Brown, Marques Walker, Ernest Ketter, Robert Lesure, Carlos Serrano, and Ronnell Lockhart) filed various nondispositive pretrial motions in a federal criminal RICO and narcotics prosecution in the District of Minnesota.
- Hearings on these motions were held in late September and early October 2024; post-hearing briefs filed by both sides were received in November 2024.
- Defendants sought various forms of discovery or procedural relief (e.g., disclosure of exculpatory material, informant identities, grand jury transcripts, bills of particulars, etc.).
- The government had already been ordered by prior case management rulings to provide certain categories of information and discovery.
- The court addressed motions both individually (as to their procedural and factual support) and categorically (denying as moot requests for information already covered by standing orders or legal rules).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Disclosure of exculpatory (Brady/Giglio) material | Compliance is ongoing and ordered | Must be compelled via further order | Denied as moot; gov’t already obligated |
| Rule 16 discovery of evidence | Already making or will make required disclosures | Seeks court-compelled Rule 16 discovery | Denied as moot; obligation stands without order |
| Identity of confidential informants | Privilege generally applies | Disclosure needed for fair trial | Denied; no showing material to defense |
| Co-conspirator statements | Will disclose under governing orders | Requests pretrial disclosure and admissibility determination | Denied as moot or premature |
| Grand jury transcripts (trial/motion witnesses) | Will timely disclose Jencks Act material | Entitled to early/pretrial transcript disclosure | Denied; no basis to compel early release |
| Retention of rough notes | No objection as to agents’ notes | Seeks to preserve all investigation notes | Granted as to informants; denied as to agents |
| Rule 404(b) evidence disclosure | Will disclose per existing scheduling | Seeks formal early disclosure and witness list | Disclosure denied as moot; no witness list |
| Bill of particulars | Indictment and discovery are sufficient | Requires more detail on charges | Denied; indictment adequately specific |
| Motions to join co-defendants’ motions | Only universal issues should be joined | Seeks broad adoption of others’ motions | Granted in part, otherwise denied |
| Strike aliases/violent overt acts as surplusage | Nicknames and acts are relevant evidence | Prejudicial and irrelevant, should be stricken | Denied; to be proved at trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (government must disclose evidence impacting witness credibility)
- Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (balancing test for disclosure of informant identities)
- McCray v. Illinois, 386 U.S. 300 (1967) (informer’s identity privilege is limited)
- United States v. Curtis, 965 F.2d 610 (8th Cir. 1992) (standard for when informant identity disclosure is necessary)
- United States v. Beasley, 688 F.3d 523 (8th Cir. 2012) (indictment must inform defendant of charges with sufficient detail)
- United States v. Delpit, 94 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 1996) (nicknames relevant and not unduly prejudicial if they will be proved at trial)