USA v. Farfan et al

1
19CR1610-LL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
MIGUEL EDUARDO VALDEZ
CAJAMARCA,
Defendant.
Case No.: 19CR1610-LL
ORDER
Under federal law, including Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and all applicable decisions from the Supreme
Court and the 	Ninth Circuit interpreting 	Brady, the government has a continuing
obligation to produce all information or evidence known to the government relating to
guilt or punishment that might reasonably be considered favorable to the defendant's
case, even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it is reasonably likely to lead to
admissible evidence. See United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900,913 n.14 (9th Cir. 2009).
Accordingly, the court orders the government to produce to the defendant in a timely
manner all such information or evidence.
Information or evidence may be favorable to a defendant's case if it either may
help bolster the defendant's case or impeach a prosecutor's witness or other government
Case 3:19-cr-01610-LL Document 233 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
19CR1610-LL
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
evidence. If doubt exists, it should be resolved in favor of the defendant with full
disclosure being made.
If the government believes that a required disclosure would compromise witness
safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any
other substantial government interest, the government may apply to the Court for a
modification of the requirements of this Disclosure Order, which may include in camera
review 	and/or 	withholding 	or 	subjecting 	to 	a 	protective 	order 	all 	or 	part 	of 	the
information.
This Disclosure Order is entered under Rule 5(f) and does not relieve any party in
this matter of any other discovery obligation. The consequences for violating either this
Disclosure Order or the government's obligations under Brady include, but are not
limited to, the following: contempt, sanction, referral to a disciplinary authority, adverse
jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of charges. Nothing in this
Disclosure 	Order 	enlarges 	or 	diminishes 	the 	government's 	obligation 	to 	disclose
information and evidence to a defendant under Brady, as interpreted and applied under
Supreme 	Court 	and 	Ninth 	Circuit 	precedent. 	As 	the 	Supreme 	Court 	noted, 	"the
government violates the Constitution's Due Process Clause 'if it withholds evidence that
is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant's guilt or punishment."' Turner
v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2017), quoting Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75
(2012).
Dated: 02/17/2026
Case 3:19-cr-01610-LL Document 233 Filed 02/17/26 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2