USA v. Brown et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION

1:00cr69
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
)

V. ) ORDER
ROBERT EARLE RUTHERFORD,
)
Defendant. )
)
)

Pending before the Court is the Motion to Produce Records [# 172].
Counsel for the State of North Carolina (the “State”) also moves for leave to file
their Motion to Produce Records by non-electronic means. The Court GRANTS
the State’s Request for Non-Electronic Filing [# 171].

In its Motion to Produce Records, the State moves the Court to produce all
records contained in the case file for case number 1:00cr69 and to unseal the
Presentence Investigation Report. Most of the documents at issue are publically
available. The State seeks the records contained in this file in connection with the
North Carolina Innocence Inquiry Commission proceedings involving Kenneth
Kagonyera and Robert Wilcoxson, III.

Upon a review of the record in this case and the State’s motion, the Court
GRANTS the motion [# 172] to the extent it seeks a copy of the public records in

INFORMATION
GPO

ia) Case 1:00-cr-O0069-MR Document173_ Filed 09/12/11 Page1of3

Although the State also requests that the Court unseal the Government’s Motion for1
Downward Departure [# 98], it does not appear that this document is currently under seal.
U.S. v. Rutherford, 1:00cr69-4. The Court DIRECTS the Clerk to make a copy of
the pleadings and case file in 1:00cr69. This copy, however, shall exclude any
sealed materials. The Clerk shall make available this copy for Senior Assistant
District Attorney to pickup at the Clerk’s Office at the United States Courthouse,
100 Otis Street, Asheville, N.C. 28801. The Court DENIES the motion [#
172] to the extent it seeks a copy of the Presentence Investigation Report for
Defendant Rutherford. “[T]he confidentiality of PSRs has always been jealously
guarded by the drafters of the federal rules, and by the federal courts.” United
States v. Trevino, 89 F.3d 187, 192 (4th Cir. 1996). Where a third party clearly
specifies the information contained in a PSR that the third party expects will reveal
exculpatory evidence, the Court will conduct an in camera examination of the PSR
and make a determination as to whether the disclosure of such information is
necessary. Id. The State has made no such showing and has not set forth any
legal authority supporting its requests for the production of the PSR. Accordingly,
an in camera review of the PSR is not warranted at this time. The Court DENIES
without prejudice the motion to [# 172] to the extent it seeks a copy of the sealed
PSR [# 99].1
Case 1:00-cr-00069-MR Document 173 Filed 09/12/11 Page 2 of 3

Signed: September 12, 2011

Dennis L. Howell
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:00-cr-O0069-MR Document173 Filed 09/12/11 Page 3of3