USA v. McReynolds, et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Kashmir Khaliffa McReynolds (1),
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cr-225 (PJS/DJF)
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant Kashmir Khaliffa McReynolds’ Motion for
Disclosure of Evidence Favorable to Defendant (ECF No. 41) (“Motion”). The Motion seeks an
order compelling the government to disclose evidence required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83
(1963), and its legal progeny. 	The Court heard the parties’ oral arguments on the Motion on
November 5, 2025. 	(ECF No. 64.) 	In post-hearing briefing, the government states that it
understands its continuing discovery obligations under Brady, has produced all the exculpatory
evidence it possesses, and has not uncovered additional exculpatory evidence despite multiple
inquiries with the relevant law enforcement agencies. (ECF No. 76 at 33-36.) Mr. McReynolds
does not dispute that the government has complied with its obligation to date. (ECF No. 83 at 3.)
Because the Court has already ordered the government on several occasions to comply with its
Brady obligations (see ECF Nos. 11, 19) and there is no present basis to conclude the government
has not complied with those orders, the Court DENIES the Motion to the extent that it seeks
immediate disclosure of Brady materials.
That said, the Court addresses an outstanding issue briefed by the parties. Mr. McReynolds
is charged with disposing a firearm to a felon and possessing a firearm while employed for a felon.
(ECF No. 1 at 6-7.) These charges arise from events on March 10, 2025, when Mr. McReynolds was
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 90 Filed 04/10/26 Page 1 of 3

shot after finishing his shift as armed security for “the community-violence-intervention organization
21 Days of Peace.” (ECF No. 1 at 1.) After he was shot, he allegedly directed Defendant Alvin
Watkins, Jr., a known felon, to retrieve a gun from his car and load it. (Id. at 4.) Mr. McReynolds
requests an order directing that the government disclose evidence related to the identities of the
individuals who shot at him, if that information becomes available. 	(ECF No. 72 at 5.) 	The
government states it does not have this information and further argues the information would not
qualify as Brady material because the identities of the shooters are not exculpatory. (ECF No. 72 at
35-36.) In response, Mr. McReynolds argues that the shooters would be witnesses to the events that
gave rise to Mr. McReynolds’ alleged crimes and would be able to corroborate those events. (ECF
No. 83 at 2-3.) Thus, the government would be obliged to produce the shooters’ identities if it ever
acquires that information.
“[W]here the witness is an active participant or witness to the offense charged, disclosure [of
his identity] will almost always be material to the accused’s defense.” United States v. Barnes, 486
F.2d 776, 778-79 (8th Cir. 1973). Here, the shooters may have witnessed whether Mr. McReynolds:
(1.) instructed Mr. Watkins to retrieve his firearm; (2.) carried a firearm during his work shift; or (3.)
ceased firing his weapon within a reasonable time after the shooters stopped firing at him. The
shooters’ identities would also shed light on the number of shooters and, potentially, whether they
fired at Mr. Reynolds from more than one direction. 	This testimony would be material to Mr.
McReynolds’ defense, including his justification defense. 	The Court therefore agrees with Mr.
McReynolds and orders the government to disclose the identities of the shooters if that information
becomes known. The Motion is therefore GRANTED to that extent.
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 90 Filed 04/10/26 Page 2 of 3

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: April 10, 2026 	s/ Dulce J. Foster
Dulce J. Foster
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:25-cr-00225-PJS-DJF Doc. 90 Filed 04/10/26 Page 3 of 3