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 on March 31, 2008, for an evidentiary hearing on a number of pending pretrial motions. Attorney Kim Tollison appeared with Titus Stigall. Attorney Ursula Bailey was present on behalf of Amanda Stigall, who was previously excused form the hearing. Attorney Steven Shope was present with defendant Joseph Manning. Attorney Kelly Johnson and his client, Ajakibiani McBayne, were previously excused from the hearing. Assistant United States Attorney Matthew Morris was present on behalf of the government.
In this case, the four defendants have been charged in a counterfeiting conspiracy. Ms McBayne has entered a plea of guilty before the District Court. Ms Stigall has timely filed six pretrial motions. At the hearing, Attorney Bailey stated that she would rely on the arguments set forth in her written submission. The United States elected to do the same. Accordingly, the Court took Ms Stigall's motions under advisement on April 1, 2008.
1.SPECIFIC BRADY REQUEST NO.1FOR NOTES OF AGENT WALLACE AND / OR MOTION FOR GOVERNMENT'S AGENTS,OFFICERS AND ATTORNEYS TO RETAIN ROUGH NOTES [DOC.48]
Ms Stigall requests two forms of relief in this motion: First, citing Rule 16 and Brady, Ms Stigall requests any notes or summations police made of conversations with her. Although the title refers to "Agent Wallace," no further information about this agent or what material he may possess. Second, Ms Stigall asks for an order compelling law enforcement agents and United States Attorneys to retain their rough notes. Ms Stigall's motion sets forth in more detail the "rough notes" requested and may include a broader array of material that contemplated by "rough notes" ordered in the Order on Discovery and Scheduling. Ms Stigall expressly recognizes this fact and asks that the Court expand its Order to include the body of material she has listed at [Doc. 48, pg. 1, ¶2.]
The government responds first that it is aware of its continuing obligations under Rule 16 and Brady, and will comply with directives set forth in Order on Discovery and Scheduling [Doc. 7 at ¶E]. Second, that the Court has already ordered agents to retain rough notes in its Order on Discovery and Scheduling [Doc. 7 at ¶H]. Third, the United States confirms that it will disclose Jencks material in accordance with the Order on Discovery and Scheduling [Doc. 7 at ¶O].
The Court finds that it has previously ordered the majority of the disclosures sought by Ms Stigall's motion and that there is no authority cited for disclosures beyond those provided in the Oder on Discovery and Scheduling, [Doc. 7]. Accordingly, Ms Stigall's Specific Brady Request [Doc. 48] is DENIED.
2.MOTION FOR NOTICE BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(B)(4)(B) OF ITS INTENTION TO USE EVIDENCE ARGUABLY SUBJECT TO SUPPRESSION [DOC.49]
Ms Stigall moves the Court to order the government to disclose material arguably subject to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16 and Rule 12(b)(4)(B). [Doc. 49]. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(4)(B) provides:
At the Defendant's Request.At the arraignment of as soon afterward as is practicable, the defendant may, in order to have an opportunity to move to suppress evidence under subdivision Rule 12(b)(3)(C), request notice of the government's intent to use (in its evidence-in-chief at trial) any evidence that the defendant may be entitled to discover under Rule 16.
Ms Stigall also asks that evidence subject to Rule 12(b)(4)(B) be distinguished from other material produced pursuant to Rule 16. Ms Stigall states that it is not the intent and purpose of the Rule 12 requirement that the government merely reply that the Rule 12 material is contained somewhere within the body of Rule 16 disclosures. Ms Stigall argues that specification is required in order for defense counsel to ...