USA v. Chantharath et al

FILEDUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA 	AUG 26 2010
SOUTHERN DIVISION 	(§D'J 7
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 	~CLEItK
*
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	* 	CR. 10-40004-06
*
Plaintiff, 	*
*
vs. 	* 	OPINION AND ORDER
* 	ON MOTIONS
PATRICIO GUZMAN-ORTIZ, 	*
*
Defendant. 	*
*
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Motion for Disclosure of Impeaching Information, Doc. 215
Defendant has moved the court for the disclosure ofimpeaching materials. The United States
has agreed, as it must, to comply with the requirements of Brady v. Mruyland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)
and Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) as to any person called as a witness in this case.
The United States noted, however, it is not required to provide the defense with the criminal records
of all its potential witnesses but has agreed to provide the defense with the criminal records of its
testifying witnesses that are properly used for impeachment purposes under the provisions of Rule
609 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the Government shall, regarding testifying witnesses, disclose impeaching
and exculpatory materials as required by Giglio and Brady, subject to the limitations ofF.R.Evid.
609. 	These disclosures shall be made no later than two weeks prior to trial. 	The remainder of
Defendant's motion is DENIED.
Motion for Disclosure of Other Bad Acts, Doc. 216
Defendant has moved the court for an order compelling the United States to disclose other
bad acts testimony which it intends to offer under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The United
States has agreed to comply, as it must, with Rule 404(b). It is hereby
Case 4:10-cr-40004-KES Document 234 Filed 08/26/10 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

ORDERED the Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Other Acts is granted, in part, and the
United States shall provide reasonable notice of its 404(b) evidence no later than two weeks prior
to trial. The balance of Defendant's motion is DENIED as to items 1-5 identified in the motion.
United States v. Rusin, 889 F.Supp. 1035, 1036 (N.D.IlI. 1995). (Government's notice of its intent
to use other crimes evidence was not required to include dates, places and persons involved in
specific acts, documents pertaining to acts, and statements of issues to which government believed
such evidence was relevant.); United States v. Jackson, 850 F.Supp 1481, 1493 (D.Kan. 1994).
(N otice of intent to use prior bad acts evidence need not provide precise details regarding date, time,
and place of prior bad acts, but it must characterize prior conduct to degree that fairly apprises
defendant of its general nature.)
Motion for Disclosure of Witness Inducements, Doc. 214
The defendant has moved the court for an order requiring the United States to disclose any
agreement entered into between the government and any government witness that could influence
said witness' testimony. 	The United States, in response to the motion, has indicated that it will
disclose information as obligated under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963) and Giglio v. United
States, 405 U.S. 	150 (1972) and their progeny, but otherwise resists Defendant's motion.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that the defendant's motion for disclosure of witness inducements is granted, in
part, and the United States shall provide the information as required under Brady and Giglio and
their progeny to defendant no later than two weeks prior to trial. The balance of Defendant' s motion
is denied.
CONCLUSION
As further discussed above, it is hereby
-2
Case 4:10-cr-40004-KES Document 234 Filed 08/26/10 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>

ORDERED that:
1. 	Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Impeaching Information (Doc. 215) is
GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
2. 	Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Other Bad Acts (Doc. 216) is GRANTED IN
P ART AND DENIED IN PART.
3. 	Defendant's Motion for Witness Inducements (Doc. 214) is GRANTED IN PART
AND DENIED IN PART.
4. 	The motions hearing as regards Defendant Patricio Guzman-Ortiz previously set for
September 9,2010, at 1:30 p.m. is cancelled.
Dated this L 	day of August, 2010.
BY THE COURT:
Jo
States Magistrate Judge
-3
Case 4:10-cr-40004-KES Document 234 Filed 08/26/10 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>