United States v. Turks, 3:17-cr-00444

Lloyd Turks is indicted on five drug charges under 21 U.S.C. § 842 and moved for: (1) pretrial interviews with informants/other percipient witnesses and (2) independent testing of an overdose victim’s blood sample.
The court previously denied both requests: it refused to order disclosure of informant identities/contact information and declined to authorize release of the remaining blood for independent testing.
The court relied on the Jencks Act, Brady, and the confidential informant privilege (Roviaro) in declining disclosure of witness identities.
The court found Turks had not shown the witnesses possessed exculpatory information sufficient to trigger Brady disclosure or to overcome the informant privilege.
The court concluded independent testing would consume the remaining blood sample and Turks presented no new facts or authority to justify subpoenas or release.
The court denied both motions to reconsider and ordered that time spent on these motions be omitted from CJA payment requests because the motions were unnecessary and repetitive.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether court must disclose informant/percipient witness identities pretrial	Gov't: maintain withholding under Jencks/Brady/privilege unless exculpatory shown	Turks: has right to investigate and interview amenable witnesses pretrial beyond Brady/Jencks	Denied — no disclosure absent showing of exculpatory evidence; Jencks/Brady/Roviaro control; motion premature/unnecessary
Whether court can compel production of witness contact info under protective order	Gov't: not obliged to disclose more than Brady; court cannot force deviation from Jencks	Turks: requests disclosure under attorneys'-eyes-only protective order	Denied — protective-order production not compelled without Brady showing
Whether court must authorize independent testing of overdose victim’s blood	Gov't: prior testing for fentanyl/analogues sufficient; independent test would consume remaining sample	Turks: requests independent testing (e.g., for heroin) and subpoenas to coroner; cites Ohio Rev. Code to argue coroner has no privilege	Denied — no new facts; independent test would consume remaining sample; no legal compulsion to order release
Whether CJA payment is appropriate for counsel’s time on the reconsideration motions	—	Turks: expects payment under CJA for counsel time	Denied — motions were unnecessary/repetitive; omit time from CJA claims

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose exculpatory evidence material to guilt or punishment)
Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957) (government may protect confidential informant identity unless disclosure is required in the interest of justice)
United States v. Algie, 667 F.2d 569 (6th Cir. 1982) (district court cannot force a U.S. Attorney to deviate from the Jencks Act's disclosure scheme)