USA v. Stevenson et al

ORDER - 1
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
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

WILSON PERSHING STEVENSON,
III and BNL TECHNICAL SERVICES,
LLC,

Defendants.

No. 4:23-CR-06014-MKD-1
4:23-CR-06014-MKD-2

ORDER FOLLOWING INITIAL
APPEARANCE AND
ARRAIGNMENT ON INDICTMENT
AND MOTION TO MODIFY
CONDITIONS OF RELEASE

MOTION GRANTED
(ECF NO. 19)

On May 10, 2023, the Court held a hearing for Defendants WILSON
PERSHING STEVENSON, III and BNL TECHNICAL SERVICES, LLC’s initial
appearance and arraignment based on an Indictment. Defendant appeared out of
custody represented by retained counsel Scott Johnson. Legal Intern Echo Fatsis
supervised by Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Freida Zimmerman represented the
United States. U.S. Probation Officer Erica Helms was also present telephonically.
Defendant was advised of, and acknowledged, his rights. The Court entered
a plea of not guilty to the Indictment on Defendant’s behalf and on behalf of the
company. Scott Johnson has been retained to represent the Defendant and his
company. The United States is not seeking detention.
IT IS ORDERED:

1. Defendant’s Motion to Modify Conditions of Release, ECF No. 19 is
GRANTED. Defendant shall remain released on the conditions previously
imposed by the Middle District of Tennessee with the following modifications:

FILED IN THE
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
SEAN F. MCAVOY, CLERK
May 12, 2023
Case 4:23-cr-06014-SAB ECF No. 24 filed 05/12/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
1 of 4

ORDER - 2
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
a. Defendant shall provide proof of income as required by Pretrial
Services rather than pay stubs as previously ordered.
b. The previously ordered drug testing condition shall be stricken.
c. Defendant may not discuss the case with any employees of BNL
Technical Services, LLC. Defendant may have contact with such
employees for ongoing business purposes.
d. BNL Services, LLC shall provide a list of current federal contracts
involving BNL Services, LLC that exist now and that come into
existence in the future to U.S. Probation.
2. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f), the
Government is advised:
a. Pursuant to F. R. Crim. P. 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.
b. 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 evidence. If doubt exists, it should be
resolved in favor of the defendant with full disclosure being made.
Case 4:23-cr-06014-SAB ECF No. 24 filed 05/12/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
2 of 4

ORDER - 3
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
c. 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.
d. 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).
3. If a party desires this Court to reconsider Defendant’s detention
because of material and newly discovered circumstances pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3142(f), that party shall file a two-page motion for reconsideration succinctly
stating what circumstances are new, how they are established, and the requested
change in conditions of release. The motion shall indicate whether opposing
counsel or Pretrial Services object, whether a hearing is desired, and whether a
Case 4:23-cr-06014-SAB ECF No. 24 filed 05/12/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
3 of 4

ORDER - 4
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
supplemental pretrial report is requested. This Court will treat the motion as
expedited and submitted without argument and will set a hearing or issue other
orders as may be appropriate.
4. If a party desires that another Court review this order pursuant to 18
U.S.C. § 3145, that party shall promptly file a motion for review before the district
judge to whom the case is assigned, as further described in the Detention Order
Review Protocol published for the Eastern District of Washington. Both parties
shall cooperate to ensure that the motion is promptly determined.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED May 12, 2023.

_____________________________________
JAMES A. GOEKE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 4:23-cr-06014-SAB ECF No. 24 filed 05/12/23 PageID.<pageID> Page
4 of 4