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. Inclan

United States District Court, D. Nevada

August 4, 2017

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff,
v.
CARLOS INCLAN, JR. Defendant.

          ORDER

          RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II., UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.

         I. Introduction

         Before the Court is the government's Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 88, 94] of this Court's order regarding exclusion of evidence. Before the Court, additionally, is Defendant's Motion in Limine to Exclude Exhibits [Dkt. 90]. The Court had previously orally ruled on these motions and indicated that a further written ruling would follow. For the reasons stated below, the Motion in Limine [Dkt. 90] is GRANTED and the Motion for Reconsideration [Dkt. 88, 94] is DENIED.

         II. Background

         The Court makes the following findings of fact and holdings.

         A. Procedural Background

         On February 25, 2015, Mr. Inclan was charged in an indictment with Receipt of Child Pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(2), Possession of Child Pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2252A(a)(5)(B), and Advertising Child Pornography under 18 U.S.C. 2251(d).

         The indictment does not list the number of images of child pornography the government intends to use to prove its case, nor does it provide a description of the images related to any of the counts. After executing a search warrant at Mr. Inclan's residence on April 12, 2012, the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (“LVMPD”) seized eleven computers and 27 hard drives. The LVMPD also seized 184 CDs and DVDs. The LVMPD completed a forensic review of some of the seized devices, and reported that it had found child pornography on three computers, three hard drives, and thirteen discs. The government alleges these devices contain thousands of images and videos of child pornography.

         1. Pretrial Exhibit Disclosure Order

         In light of the number of images and videos located on numerous devices, Mr. Inclan filed a Motion for Bill of Particulars, arguing he could not adequately prepare a trial defense without knowing which images and videos from which devices the government intended to introduce. [Dkt. 26].

         On February 23, 2017, the Court held a hearing regarding pre-trial case management, and addressed the Motion for Bill of Particulars. [Dkt 66, Transcript of Hearing]. At this hearing, the Court discussed with the government the nature of the case and the images involved. The Court found based upon the record that the Defendant would need to know which digital files the government intended to use at trial to be able to adequately prepare possible defenses. The government indicated that it did not intend to use all of the thousands of images but instead would only be using a select number of digital files. The Court denied the Motion for Bill of Particulars, because it was requested outside of the time limits prescribed by Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f), but the Court nevertheless entered a Pretrial Case Management Order (“February 23 Order”), requiring disclosure of the exhibits the government intended to introduce at trial. [Dkt 66, p 5].

         As is evident from the record, the Court entered its February 23 Order pursuant to its authority under Fed. R. Cr. P. 2 and 16, and its more general inherent authority to manage its docket. See U.S. v. W.R. Grace, 526 F.3d 499, 509 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a Court may require a finalized list of witnesses and trial exhibits in advance of trial pursuant to its authority under Fed. R. Cr. P. 2 and 16, and its managerial authority). The Court issued the Order in the interest of effective case management. The Court found that it would have been highly inefficient and unfair to require Inclan to have to prepare for the possibility of defending against the unique forensic characteristics of each of the thousands of images or files. Relatedly, the Court also issued the Order based upon its finding that there are thousands of digital images and that the Defendant would need to know which digital files the government might offer into evidence as the defenses could vary based upon each individual digital file. Given the Court's findings, the government's identification of the range of potential digital files to be used was necessary “to inform the defendant of the nature of the charges against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at the time of trial, and to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment is too vague and indefinite for such purposes.” United States v. Ayers, 924 F.2d 1468, 1438 (9th Cir. 1991) (internal quotations omitted).

         The Court ordered the government to identify a set of 50 digital images from which it would offer evidence at trial. The Court accommodated the schedule of counsel for the government, and set a deadline for April 7, 2017 for the required disclosure to Inclan. [Dkt 66, pp 6-7]. The Court also informed the government that it was permitted to provide up to 50 images or files on the exhibit list, and would subsequently be permitted to seek leave of Court to substitute any of the images or files on that list with forensically similar images before the commencement of trial. [Dkt 66, pp 9, 11]. The government did not file any objections to the Court's authority to issue the February 23 Order.

         On April 6, 2017, the government produced to the defense an April 3, 2017 Examiner Report, authored by Detective Ramirez, a government witness. The government represented to the defense that the list contained within the Examiner Report was the list 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.