United States v. Nix
251 F. Supp. 3d 555
W.D.N.Y.2017Background
- Defendants Nix and McCoy were convicted after a March 2017 jury trial on Hobbs Act, firearms, and narcotics counts; sentencing was pending.
- After the verdict, defense counsel issued nine Rule 17(c) subpoenas (some to third parties, one to an FBI agent) returnable in the judge’s chambers on dates/times unapproved by the Court.
- Several subpoenas sought broad materials: social media and metadata, telephone company communications with government, juror background checks, jail-call recordings, and criminal-history searches for a prospective juror (T.P.).
- The Government moved to quash the post-verdict subpoenas, arguing they violated Rule 17 procedure, sought materials beyond Rule 16, and invaded work product/mental impressions. The Court stayed compliance pending resolution.
- The Court found defense counsel (particularly Nix’s counsel) had a history of improper subpoena practice and other improper post-verdict conduct (contacting jurors, retaining jury lists), and admonished counsel against further violations.
Issues
| Issue | Government's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-verdict Rule 17(c) subpoenas issued without court approval were proper | Subpoenas required court approval for pre/hearing production; these were returnable in chambers with no approval and thus improper | Subpoenas are permissible post-trial under Rule 17(c) and need not have prior court approval | Court: Grant to quash — subpoenas seeking pre-production in chambers required court approval; failure to obtain it warrants quash |
| Whether subpoenas constituted an improper fishing expedition / failed Nixon factors | Requests were overbroad, speculative, and sought material obtainable or irrelevant to trial; defense failed to show relevance, specificity, admissibility, or unavailability | Defense argued government should detail facts so defense can respond; implied need to investigate for post-trial motions | Court: Grant to quash — defense failed Nixon showing (relevance, specificity, admissibility, due diligence); subpoenas were fishing expeditions |
| Whether the Government has standing to move to quash third-party subpoenas | Government has legitimate interests (protecting privileged materials, preventing harassment, trial disruption) and court has independent duty to police Rule 17 | Defendants did not challenge government standing | Court: Government has standing; court will review subpoenas for compliance with Rule 17 |
| Whether victim-related subpoenas were issued without mandatory court leave (Rule 17(c)(3)) | Some defense subpoenas sought personal/confidential victim info without court leave; Rule 17(c)(3) requires court approval and notice | Defense nonetheless issued subpoenas after being warned; no justification for bypassing Rule 17(c)(3) | Court: Admonished counsel, found violations, and noted future sanctions if repeated; those subpoenas improper without leave |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974) (establishes Nixon test for pretrial subpoenas: relevancy, admissibility, specificity and that Rule 17(c) is not a discovery device)
- Bowman Dairy Co. v. United States, 341 U.S. 214 (1951) (Rule 17(c) not intended to provide additional discovery; purpose is to expedite trials)
- United States v. Leaver, 358 F. Supp. 2d 273 (S.D.N.Y. 2005) (Rule 17(c) may be used for pretrial or post-trial hearings but not to permit broad discovery)
- United States v. Vo, 78 F. Supp. 3d 171 (D.D.C. 2015) (discusses Rule 17 subpoenas generally and cautions against misuse of pretrial production without court oversight)
- United States v. Raineri, 670 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 1982) (party has standing to move to quash third-party subpoenas when movant’s legitimate interests are implicated)