Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States of America v. Joel Santana-Pierna A/K/A Gregory Alexis Ortiz-Muniz

March 15, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOEL SANTANA-PIERNA A/K/A GREGORY ALEXIS ORTIZ-MUNIZ A/K/A OMAR CALDERON HERNANDEZ A/K/A EDWARD ALAMO ALAMO A/K/A "PRIMO"; ABEL SANTANA-PIERNA A/K/A EMMANUEL MORALES-DIAZ; MISAEL POLANCO-VILLA A/K/A "JOSE"; NICOLAS JIMENEZ SANCHEZ; AND RANDIN PAREDES HENRIQUEZ, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: John D. Roberts United States Magistrate Judge

AMENDED ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY PLAN and PRETRIAL MOTION SCHEDULE

This criminal case charges defendant with theft, fraud and misapplication from an organization receiving federal funds and money laundering. Trial in this case is currently set for June 11, 2012. The case was declared complex by District Court Judge Timothy Burgess on February 24, 2012. Docket 47.

On March 9, 2012 the government moved the court to reconsider portions of the Order regarding the Discovery plan. Docket 56. The parties filed responses as follows: Docket 59 by Defendant Abel Santana-Pierna, Docket 60 by Defendant Misael Polanco-Villa, and Docket 61 by Defendant Nicolas Jimenez-Sanchez.

It is the purpose of this order to set a time table for the government's production of designated categories of discovery so further litigation will not be needed. It is the intent of the Court to avoid unnecessary delay in the production of discovery. The parties should continue to work together to provide available discovery to the defense expeditiously and economically. The defendant should avoid filing boiler plate discovery motions where the matter can be resolved by meeting and conferring with the government attorney.

The Pretrial Motion Schedule is binding on all counsel in this case unless otherwise ordered. This order is not subject to amendment by the parties without Court approval. The deadlines set below present the latest dates on which the government has to produce evidence relevant to that category. In the spirit of continued cooperation the Court expects the government to provide discovery prior to those dates when feasible. The government will keep a list of discovery provided to the defendant and the date it was produced.

Discovery and Inspection Plan

1. Defendant's oral, written or recorded statements as described in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (a)(1)(A) and (B) disclosed by the government are due March 1, 2012. (**See Footnote 1)

2. Defendant's prior record as described in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(D) due by March 1, 2012. (**See Footnote 1)

3. All documents and objects as described in Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (A)(1)(E), shall be produced by the government by March 1, 2012.***fn1

4. Documents and tangible evidence, as well as oral statements, or other evidence which tends to exculpate a defendant or is favorable or useful to the defense on the issues of guilt or punishment; or as governed by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) and their progeny shall be provided to the defense at a time meaningful for use by the defendant(s) no later than May 11, 2012. See United States v. Woodley, 9 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1993). The court has discretion to require non-Jencks Brady material to be disclosed prior to the commencement of trial. United States v. Cerna, 633 F. Supp. 2d 1053, 1058 (N.D. Cal. 2009). In the exercise of its discretion the court has considered factors including: (1) the need to protect witnesses; (2) the need to avoid disruptive trial continuances; (3) the likely lead time defense counsel will need to use the material effectively; and (4) the fact that impeachment material for trial witnesses ought to be deferred until closer to trial when witnesses may be identified more precisely. Id. This case has been declared complex. Requiring production of potential impeachment evidence particularly that which is not contained in a Jencks statement prior to trial balances the need for the defense to conduct sufficient investigation with the goal of preventing avoidable continuances of trial.

5. The government will notify defendant by May 25, 2012 of its intent to use statements of co-conspirators and the government will identify those statements as specifically as possible.

6. The government will identify any experts it intends to use in its case-in-chief pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705 by April 27, 2012.

7. The defendant will identify any experts they intend to use at trial pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 702, 703 and 705 by May 15, 2012.

8. Government expert reports and summary of expert testimony during the case-in-chief pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 (A)(1)(G) shall be ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.