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. Marshall

United States District Court, Eighth Circuit

May 7, 2013

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD MARSHALL, ELWANDA FIRE THUNDER, REYES CHAVEZ-ROJO, MOSES MONTILEAUX, JR., and ZENO LITTLE, Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTIONS TO COMPEL [DOCKET NOS. 290, 296, 347, 358 & 363]

VERONICA L. DUFFY, Magistrate Judge.

INTRODUCTION

An indictment filed in this case charges seventeen defendants with varying counts of conspiracy to distribute methamphetamine, conspiracy to distribute marijuana, conspiracy to distribute cocaine, and distribution of marijuana. The five above-listed defendants all filed motions seeking an order from the court compelling certain discovery. These motions were referred to this magistrate judge for determination by the Honorable Chief Judge Jeffrey L. Viken. Docket Nos. 341, 361.

FACTS

Defendant Richard Marshall is the only defendant charged in all four counts of the indictment. Defendant Reyes Chavez-Rojo is alleged to have participated in all three of the conspiracy counts. Defendants Elwanda Fire Thunder, Zeno Little, and Moses Montileaux, Jr. are all alleged to have participated in the marijuana conspiracy. And Ms. Fire Thunder is also alleged to have participated in the cocaine conspiracy.

The conspiracy charges are all alleged to have occurred from October, 2008, through May 15, 2012, in the District of South Dakota and elsewhere. The marijuana distribution count, in which Mr. Marshall is the sole defendant charged, is alleged to have occurred on or about January 13, 2009, in the District of South Dakota.

The procedural history of these motions is of note. The five above-named defendants either filed motions of their own, or joined in pending motions filed by other defendants, requesting that the court issue an order compelling the government to provide statements of co-defendants, statements of co-conspirators, impeaching material, the government's witness list for trial, and to identify confidential informants. See Docket Nos. 290, 296, 347, 358, and 363.

In response to those motions, the government indicated that it provided additional discovery to defendants as follows: (1) memoranda of interviews of anticipated government witnesses; (2) memoranda of interviews for confidential informants; and (3) potential impeachment materials as to co-defendants such as plea agreements and criminal histories. The government promised to disclose additional memoranda of interviews of co-defendants that have not yet been reduced to writing as soon as they are available.

In addition, the government agreed to provide the identity of testifying confidential informants and any potential Giglio cross-examination material as to those informants two weeks before the scheduled trial date.

Finally, the government provided copies of co-defendants' statements that the government intends to introduce at trial, along with a proposal for redacting one such statement in order to alleviate potential Bruton problems with the use of that statement at trial. Docket Nos. 392, 393.

In light of the government's additional disclosures to these defendants, the court directed the five moving defendants to file reply briefs to their own motions indicating if any disputes still existed regarding their discovery requests. Docket Nos. 402, 412. Ms. Fire Thunder and Mr. Chavez-Rojo did not file any reply brief. From this, the court concludes that these defendants believe the government's production of additional documents, or its promise to do so, is satisfactory to them.

Mr. Little filed a reply brief indicating that his discovery requests have been resolved by the government's production or promise to produce the additional documents discussed above. Docket No. 448. Mr. Montileaux, Jr. filed a reply brief indicating that the government's production and promises are likewise acceptable to him, but asking that the court order the government to adhere to its stated intentions as to that production. Docket No. 451.

Mr. Marshall alone filed a reply brief indicating substantive and particularized dissatisfactions with various categories of documents requested in his original motion. Docket No. 449. Those ...


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.