United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Western Division
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR DISCOVERY (DOC. 22)
WOLLMANN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Edward Red Feather, filed a motion to compel the government
to turn over certain discovery. (Doc. 22). United States
District Court Judge Jeffrey L. Viken, Chief Judge, referred
Mr. Red Feather's motion to this magistrate judge for
determination. (Doc 43).
Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) requires the
Government to “permit the defendant to inspect and to
copy or photograph . . . papers, documents . . . or tangible
objects . . . if the item is within the Government's
possession, custody, or control and the item is material to
preparing the defense.”
defendant who requests documents, believing them to be
material to his defense, must “make a prima facie
showing of materiality.” United States v.
Tornquist, No. CR 11-50118, 2012 WL 2862864, *3 (D.S.D.
July 11, 2012) (citations omitted). “Evidence is
material if it enables a defendant to significantly alter the
quantum of proof in his or her favor.” Id.
(citing United States v. Baker, 453 F.3d 419, 425
(7th Cir. 2006); United States v. Ross, 511 F.2d
757, 763 (5th Cir. 1975) (internal quotations omitted)).
“Evidence is material under Rule 16 if there is a
strong indication that it will play an important role in
uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation .
. . or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.”
Tornquist, 2012 WL 2862864 at 3 (citing United
States v. Graham, 83 F.3d 1466, 1474 (D.D.C. 1996). The
materiality standard is “not a heavy burden.”
Graham, 83 F.3d at 1474 (other citations omitted).
Mr. Red Feather is requesting discovery as outlined as Items
1, 2, 3, and 4 in his motion to compel. (Doc. 22). A hearing
on the motion was held on October 25, 2017, and the court
entered oral rulings. Those ruling are memorialized herein.
Any and all treatment records and/or other information the
government has relevant to the alleged victim's alcohol
and/or drug abuse issues.
United States must produce the records to court chambers
regarding the victim's alcohol and drug treatment records
for an in camera review on or before November 25,
2017, for the court's determination if any of the records
An explanation or account of whether or not “lapel
cam” footage exists from the night of the alleged
incident, and if not, why it doesn't exist.
United States acknowledged that the “lapel cam”
footage does not exist and explained that the officer did not
have his camera activated. Given the information and
explanation provided by the United States, the court denies
this item as moot.
“Rap sheets” or criminal histories, including
tribal arrest and conviction history, for any and all
United States agreed that it will provide NCIC criminal
histories for all government witnesses on the Friday
preceding the pretrial conference hearing. Therefore, the
court will deny this portion of the motion as moot.
the United States agreed that any criminal history for law
enforcement agents associated with this case would be
discoverable under Giglio and the government would
be required to disclose the same. However, the United States
advised that no such criminal ...