United States v. White, 0:22-cr-00207

Justin White was indicted in federal court for possession with intent to distribute fentanyl, possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
White, representing himself with standby counsel, requested additional laboratory testing of the seized substance to determine the exact amount of fentanyl present.
He specifically sought court-ordered testing by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) or an independent lab.
The government indicated uncertainty about whether the BCA could conduct the requested testing and opposed the motion absent legal authority mandating such testing at White's specifications.
The Magistrate Judge denied White's request for the Court to order the BCA to conduct the testing but allowed for the possibility of funding if an independent lab was found.
White appealed the Magistrate Judge’s denial to the District Court.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Court ordering the BCA to conduct specific tests	No legal obligation; BCA may not follow defense's specifications	BCA can and should conduct requested test according to defense's method	Denied. No legal basis to require BCA to conduct test as requested.
Authorization/funding for independent testing	Will cooperate if standby counsel locates a suitable lab	Needs additional testing to prepare defense and for sentencing mitigation	Magistrate Judge's willingness to consider future requests if independent lab found affirmed.

Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1985) (standard for when a finding is "clearly erroneous")
Lisdahl v. Mayo Found., 633 F.3d 712 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for appellate review of magistrate judge’s order)
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. 2007) (liberal construction required for pro se pleadings)
Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526 (8th Cir. 1984) (pro se litigants remain subject to procedural and substantive law)