The opinion of the court was delivered by: C. Clifford Shirley, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge
All pretrial motions in this case have been referred to the undersigned pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) for disposition or report and recommendation regarding disposition by the District Court as may be appropriate. This case came before the Court for a motions hearing on August 30, 2007. Mario Roberto Diaz-Mourillo was present with his attorney Jonathan Moffatt. Assistant United States Attorney Robert Simpson was present on behalf of the United States. At that time, the Court heard argument on defendant's Motion for Release of Brady Materials [Doc. 14] and Motion in Limine on FRE 404(b) and FRE 609 [Doc. 13].
A.BRADY MATERIALS [DOC.14]
In this pretrial motion, Mr. Diaz-Mourillo has requested specific evidence he identifies as potentially exculpatory, and asks the Court to order the government to disclose them, citing the authority of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Miller v. Pate, 386 U.S. 1 (1967), Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967), and Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786 (1972). Mr. Diaz-Mourillo seeks the following information:
1. Any witness statements in the possession of the government which make any reference to whether the defendant was intoxicated on the date of the car accident in this case.
2. Any record of witness statements taken by investigators, such as reports or rough notes, which allude to references made by the witness to whether the defendant was intoxicated on the date of the car accident in this case.
3. A list of all witnesses interviewed regarding the actions of the defendant on May 27, 2007 including the last known address and telephone number of each witness.
4. Any evidence which may be favorable to the defendant on the question of whether he was voluntarily intoxicated on the night of the accident.
5. The results of any fingerprint tests conducted on any evidence recovered from a Saturn automobile, including, but not limited to, any alcohol bottles.
The United States responds in opposition at [Doc. 18], arguing that the defendant is not entitled to any of the listed information except the results of fingerprint examination. The government argues that there is no general constitutional right to discovery in a criminal case and Bradydid not create one, relying upon United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1281 (6th Cir. 1988); and Weatherford v. Bursey, 429 U.S. 545, 559 (1977). The government cited United States v. McCullah, 745 F.2d 350, 353 (6th Cir. 1984) in support of its position that Mr. Diaz-Mourillo is not entitled to learn the identity of the government's trial witnesses. The government stated that it is cognizant of a continuing duty to disclose any Bradyevidence that may come to its attention in this case and the it will abide by Brady.
After hearing argument on each issue, the Court found as follows:
1. Any witness statements in the possession of the government which make any reference to whether the defendant was intoxicated on the date of the car accident in this case and
2. Any record of witness statements taken by investigators, such as reports or rough notes, which allude to references made by the witness to whether the defendant was ...