United States v. MCBROOM
2:21-cr-00097
W.D. Pa.Jul 12, 2023Background
- On Feb. 19, 2021 in Pittsburgh's Homewood neighborhood, officers observed a rented Chrysler Pacifica (FL plate) move from a travel lane to park; officers stated the driver failed to signal and initiated a traffic stop.
- McBroom was removed, handcuffed, and searched; on-person items included ecstasy powder, an ecstasy pill, and a digital scale.
- The vehicle was towed; a magistrate judge issued a warrant and a subsequent vehicle search recovered a loaded revolver. McBroom was indicted on firearms and drug-distribution–related charges.
- McBroom filed pretrial motions: Rule 404(b) notice, broad discovery requests (including rough notes and dispatch communications), early Jencks/grand jury materials, and a renewed suppression motion challenging the legality of the stop (and later asserting race-based concerns).
- The court previously held a suppression hearing, initially granted suppression based on Pennsylvania law, then reconsidered and concluded the officers reasonably (and in the alternative in good faith) believed a signal violation occurred; McBroom sought reconsideration again.
- The court resolved the current motions: required 404(b) notice 7 days before trial; denied broad discovery requests as premature/overbroad (ordered retention of rough notes); denied early Jencks and grand jury transcript requests; denied renewed suppression motion; granted leave to supplement pretrial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (McBroom) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 404(b) notice timing | Will comply but proposed 7–10 days before trial | Requests prompt, detailed pretrial notice | Government must disclose 404(b) material no later than 7 days pretrial; otherwise motion denied |
| Pretrial discovery (Rule 16/Brady/Giglio; dispatch/audio; rough notes) | Has produced Rule 16 materials, will supplement, will provide prior discovery to new counsel; Jencks held until witness testifies | Seeks broad production (videos, dispatch, statements, rough notes, witness info, impeachment) | Motion denied as premature; requests for dispatch comms and rough notes denied without prejudice; gov't ordered to retain rough notes; Brady/Giglio obligations reiterated |
| Jencks Act / grand jury transcripts | Will provide Jencks material ~14 days before trial; grand jury secrecy presumptive | Seeks early Jencks (45 days) and grand jury transcripts to probe alleged false testimony | Early Jencks and grand jury transcript requests denied; court will encourage pretrial disclosure to avoid delays; grand jury transcripts denied for lack of particularized need |
| Renewed suppression (stop legality; turn-signal law; race-based stop; reconsideration) | Officers credibly testified they did not see a signal; stop was objectively reasonable under then-applicable law; good-faith exception applies | Argues court misapplied/retroactively applied PA law, reliance on non-precedential authorities, new evidence, and raises race-based stop concerns | Renewed motion denied: no intervening change warranting reconsideration, no clear legal error, credibility findings stand; race-based claim not properly raised or developed at hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (impeachment-brady material includes government witness promises/benefits)
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. United States, 356 U.S. 677 (1958) (party seeking grand jury disclosure must show particularized need)
- Commonwealth v. Tillery, 249 A.3d 278 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2021) (state decision concerning required use of turn signal)
- United States v. Vella, 562 F.2d 275 (3d Cir. 1977) (government must retain and may have to produce rough interview notes)
- United States v. Ammar, 714 F.2d 238 (3d Cir. 1983) (retention and possible production of rough notes and drafts; Jencks adoption issues)
- United States v. McDowell, 888 F.2d 285 (3d Cir. 1989) (grand jury secrecy standard and particularized-need requirement)
- United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65 (3d Cir. 1994) (Rule 16 discovery principles in criminal cases)