United States v. Wright
2:14-cr-00357
D. Nev.Aug 14, 2015Background
- Defendant Brian Wright, proceeding pro se, is charged in a multi-defendant indictment for armed robberies of three Las Vegas jewelry stores.
- Wright filed multiple pretrial motions: to compel broad discovery, to sever his trial from a co-defendant, to dismiss the indictment, and for extensions of time; the Government moved for a Faretta canvas.
- Wright’s motion to compel sought grand jury transcripts, a bill of particulars, impeachment/Brady material, law enforcement notes, and names of favorable witnesses, but offered no specific factual support.
- Wright sought severance asserting Bruton problems based on co-defendant statements that potentially implicate him and on differences in alleged participation across the robberies.
- Wright moved to dismiss the indictment arguing grand jury abuse and also alleged unlawful arrest and an unlawful search (seeking relief under Franks), but provided no supporting police reports, warrants, or affidavits.
- The magistrate denied the motion to compel, deferred the severance decision and ordered the Government to submit Bruton statements for in camera review, recommended denial of the motion to dismiss, granted time extensions, granted the Government’s Faretta canvas motion, and gave Wright leave to file a timely, properly supported motion to suppress.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Motion to Compel discovery | Government has continuing Brady/Rule 16 duties to disclose favorable/exculpatory material; will comply as required | Wright asked for broad categories (grand jury transcripts, Brady, notes, witnesses) and alleged grand jury perjury but gave no specific factual basis | Denied — Wright failed to make the requisite prima facie/materiality showing or identify specific discovery sought |
| Motion to Sever (Bruton concerns) | Government argued remedies (redaction, limiting instructions, plea) can preserve confrontation rights; joint trial preferred | Wright argued co-defendant’s statements (e.g., directions, coercion) implicate him and create a Bruton issue requiring severance | Deferred to district judge — court ordered Government to submit all Bruton statements for in camera review at calendar call; severance not granted at this stage |
| Motion to Dismiss indictment (grand jury abuse) | Prosecutor properly presented evidence; multiple confessions by others do not preclude Wright’s possible involvement | Wright argued prosecutor lied to grand jury and indictment is invalid because others confessed and his arrest/search were unlawful (Franks claim) | Recommended denial — Wright failed to show flagrant prosecutorial misconduct; Franks/suppression claims denied without prejudice and Wright granted leave to file a factual motion to suppress with supporting documents |
| Faretta canvas; extensions; suppression filing | Government sought a second Faretta canvass to confirm Wright’s pro se status; requested Bruton statements timely | Wright sought extensions to file replies and to file suppression motion | Granted — Faretta canvas hearing set; Wright’s extension requests granted; Wright given leave to file a timely motion to suppress attaching police reports, warrants, affidavits |
Key Cases Cited
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (government must disclose exculpatory evidence)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (strong preference for joint trials; severance standards)
- Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) (non-testifying co-defendant’s confession implicating defendant can violate Confrontation Clause)
- Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U.S. 200 (1987) (extent of Bruton; limiting instructions and redaction considerations)
- Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185 (1998) (redaction rules in Bruton context)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (burden to show materiality for disclosure)
- United States v. Stever, 603 F.3d 747 (9th Cir. 2010) (Brady duties summarized)
- United States v. Al Mudarris, 695 F.2d 1182 (9th Cir. 1983) (standard for dismissing indictment for grand jury abuse)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (requirement for hearing and showing to challenge truthfulness of warrant affidavits)