Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Desage

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 1, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RAMON DESAGE; et. al., Defendants.

          ORDER

          CAM FERENBACH, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Before the court are Desage's motion for discovery (ECF No. 150) and the Government's response (ECF No. 185). As of February 28, 2017, Desage has not filed a reply. For the reasons stated below, Desage's motion is granted in part and denied in part.

         I. Discussion

         a. Witness List

         “Although [Federal] Rule [of Criminal Procedure] 16 does not expressly mandate the disclose of nonexpert witnesses, it is no inconsistent with Rule 16 and Rule 2 for a court to order the government to produce a list of such witnesses as a matter of its discretion.” United States v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 510 (9th Cir. 2008)(en banc)(emphasis in original). “The rule does not entitle the defendant to a list of such witnesses, but by the same token it does not suggest that a district court is prohibited from ordering such disclosure.” Id. at 511 (emphasis in original).

         The Government has agreed to provide a complete list of witnesses approximately 7 days before trial at Calendar Call. (ECF No. 185 at 7) Given the complexity of this action and the number of potential witnesses involved, the court orders that the Government provide its witness list 30 days before trial. See W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d at 514 (holding that it was not an abuse of the trial court's discretion to order disclosure of a nonexpert witness list one year before trial).

         b. Exhibit List and Copies

         As with nonexpert witness disclosures, Rule 16 does not mandate nor does it prohibit pretrial disclosure of the Government's exhibit list. Id. In its response, the Government agreed to provide an itemized exhibit list at Calendar Call. (ECF No. 185 at 7) Given the large number of documents involved in this action, the court orders that the Government provide its itemized exhibit list and appropriate copies 30 days before trial.

         c. Other Requested Discovery

         a. Bill of Particulars

         “The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f).

The purpose of a bill of particulars are threefold: ‘[1] To inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, [2] to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of trial, and [3] to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment itself is too vague and indefinite for such purposes.' United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1483 (9th Cir. 1991)(quoting United States v.

Giese, 597 F.2d 1170, 1180 (9th Cir. 1979). After reviewing the operative indictment, the court concludes a bill of particulars is unnecessary. Desage has sufficient information about his alleged victims, his alleged conduct, and the timeframe for which he is being indicted in order to understand the charges against him and prepare for trial. (ECF No. 60)

         b. Identities of ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.