DOCSLIB.ORG

Discovery Policy for Criminal Cases United States Attorney's Office

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Discovery Policy for Criminal Cases United States Attorney's Office DISCOVERY POLICY FOR CRIMINAL CASES UNITED STATES ATTORNEY’S OFFICE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JOHN E. MURPHY UNITED STATES ATTORNEY The guidance contained in this policy is subject to legal precedent, court orders, and local rules. This policy prospective guidance only and is not intended to have the force of law or to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits. See United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979). October 15, 2010 In accordance with the memorandum of the Deputy Attorney General dated January 4, 2010,1 this document sets forth the policy of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas governing discovery in criminal cases. Discovery rules governing criminal cases, including disclosure obligations under Rule 16, Fed.R.Crim.P., Brady v. Maryland, United States v. Giglio, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, Rule 26.2, Fed.R.Crim.P., and other authorities, are highly complex and no policy can be tailored to address all possible discovery issues. Every AUSA has an obligation to be familiar with the requirements of statutes, rules, court decisions, court orders, and Department of Justice policy. This policy is intended to set forth an office approach to discovery, generally, and to serve as a guide or checklist to satisfy the government’s discovery and other disclosure obligations.2 1 Available at: Requirement for Office Discovery Policies in Crm. Matters.PDF 2 Cases involving national security, including terrorism, espionage, counterintelligence, and export enforcement, can present unique and difficult criminal discovery issues. The Department of Justice has developed special guidance for those cases, which is contained in Acting Deputy Attorney General Gary G. Grindler’s September 29, 2010, memorandum, “Policy and Procedures Regarding the Government’s Duty To Search for Discoverable Information in the Possession of the Intelligence Community or Military in Criminal Investigations.” Prosecutors should consult that memorandum and their supervisors regarding discovery obligations relating to classified or other sensitive national security information. As a general rule, in those cases where the prosecutor, after conferring with other members of the prosecution team, has a specific reason to believe that one or more elements of the Intelligence Community (IC) possess discoverable material, he or she should consult NSD regarding whether to request a prudential search of the pertinent IC element(s). All prudential search requests and other discovery requests of the IC must be coordinated through NSD. Although discovery issues relating to classified information are most likely to arise in national security cases, they may also arise in a variety of other criminal cases, including narcotics cases, human trafficking cases, money laundering cases, and organized crime cases. In particular, it is important to determine whether the prosecutor, or another member of the prosecution team, has specific reason to believe that one or more elements of the IC possess discoverable material in the following kinds of criminal cases: Those targeting corrupt or fraudulent practices by middle or upper officials of a foreign government; Those involving alleged violations of the Arms Export Control Act or the International Emergency Economic Powers Act; Those involving trading with the enemy, international terrorism, or significant international narcotics trafficking, especially if they involve foreign government or October 15, 2010 2 As a matter of office policy, AUSAs must comply with applicable rules, statutes, caselaw, and court orders. In most cases, broad and early discovery is encouraged. But in all cases, AUSAs are expected to exercise professional judgment, tailoring and timing discovery to encourage prompt resolution of cases; promote efficient disposition of cases; minimize discovery disputes in the courts; ensure that all Brady and Giglio information is timely disclosed; and taking steps necessary (including seeking protective orders) to protect witnesses and victims and to maintain the integrity of the criminal process. While broad discovery is encouraged in most cases, the office does not have an “open file” practice. This term should be avoided so as not to inadvertently mislead defendants or the courts about the scope of discovery. In any case or circumstance in which there is a question about the timing or scope of discovery, including any case in which an AUSA seeks to deviate from this policy, he or she should consult with a supervisor. The purpose of this policy is to ensure consistent compliance and practice concerning discovery obligations. This policy does not create any rights or entitlements for defendants or others. military personnel; Other significant cases involving international suspects and targets; and Cases in which one or more targets are, or have previously been, associated with an intelligence agency. For these cases, or for any other case in which the prosecutors, case agents, or supervisors making actual decisions on an investigation or case have a specific reason to believe that an element of the IC possesses discoverable material, the prosecutor should consult with NSD regarding whether to make through NSD a request that the pertinent IC element conduct a prudential search. If neither the prosecutor, nor any other member of the prosecution team, has a reason to believe that an element of the IC possesses discoverable material, then a prudential search generally is not necessary. October 15, 2010 3 I. NOTICE In addition to the obligation to disclose information, documents, tangible objects, etc., several rules and other provisions require the Government to provide the defense with notice of intent to use certain evidence. At a minimum, notice should be provided in accordance with any court order. As a general practice, notice of intent to use evidence under Fed.R.Cr.P. 12(b)(4), or Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) should be provided as soon as practical after arraignment. A. Rule 12(b)(4), Fed.R.Cr.P., Notice AUSAs should provide written notice of intent to use evidence that might be the subject of a motion to suppress in all appropriate cases as soon as practical after arraignment, but should be within the limits imposed by applicable court order. (In San Antonio and Del Rio, routine discovery orders require notice 20 days after arraignment.) B. Rule 404(b), Fed.R.Evid. AUSAs should provide notice of intent to use 404(b) evidence as soon as practical after arraignment, but in no event later than the limits imposed by the various court orders, absent good cause. (The standard discovery order in San Antonio requires that Rule 404(b) notice be given 15 days before the last scheduled trial date; Del Rio requires notice 10 days before trial begins; the order for Midland and Pecos requires disclosure upon request by the defendant). C. Rule 807, Fed.R.Evid. The required notice under the residual hearsay exception should be provided as soon as practical after arraignment, and generally, should be provided at least 5 days before trial. D. Notice of Involvement of Confidential Informants As a general policy, this office does not reveal the identity of non-testifying confidential informants unless ordered to do so by the court, and concurred in by the agency that made the promise of confidentiality to the informant. II. RULE 16 DISCOVERY A. Timing of Disclosure Rule 16 requires the Government to produce for inspection and copying specific categories of information “upon a defendant’s request.” The District Courts routinely order or expect the Government to produce Rule 16 information without a specific request by the defendant. Because few defendants produce anything meaningful as reciprocal discovery, and because the courts expect October 15, 2010 4 us to disclose information in all cases, the office will produce Rule 16 materials without request in accordance with the applicable order of the District Court. In most cases, this means Rule 16 materials available to the prosecutor will be produced or offered to the defense 14 to 20 days after arraignment. If no order is entered, and if the court has no standing practice, Rule 16 materials should be offered to the defense within 20 days of arraignment. B. Continuing Obligation The duty to disclose Rule 16 material is a continuing one. AUSAs should tender additional Rule 16 material to the defense “promptly” after it is discovered or obtained, ordinarily within 5 working days. C. Protective Orders If, for any reason an AUSA believes that specific material falling within Rule 16 should not be disclosed to the defendant, the AUSA should file a motion for a protective order with the court at the time Rule 16 disclosure should be made, or the material is later obtained. The motion should be filed ex parte, in camera under seal. The proposed order should seek appropriate relief, which may include delaying disclosure until a time closer to trial, authorizing redaction of sensitive information, limiting the use and any subsequent copying and disclosure of the material to the persons necessary to prepare and present the defense, requiring the return of the information upon the completion of the prosecution, and requiring that any submission of the material in a proceeding be done under seal or only with the prior approval of the court. D. Rule 16 Material subject to disclosure 1. Defendant’s Statements a. Defendant’s Oral Statements: This includes: The substance of an oral statement of the defendant that is Relevant, Was made in response to interrogation, By a person the defendant knew was government agent, and Which the Government intends to use at trial. b. Defendant’s Written or Recorded Statements: This includes: Any written or recorded statement made by the defendant that is Relevant, That is within Government’s possession, control or custody, or that The Government attorney knows or could know that the statement exists. c. Portion of Written Record of Substance of Defendant’s Oral October 15, 2010 5 Statement.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Proffer Agreements
    BAR OURNAL J FEATURE States Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York provides: [T]he Office may use any statements made by Proffer Agreements Client: (A) to obtain leads to other evidence, which evidence may be used by the Office in any stage of a criminal prosecution (including What Is Your Client Waiving but not limited to detention hearing, trial or sentencing), civil or administrative proceeding, (B) as substantive evidence to and Is It Worth the Risk? cross-examine Client, should Client testify, and (C) as substantive evidence to rebut, directly or indirectly, any evidence offered or elicited, BY JOHN MCCAFFREY & JON OEBKER or factual assertions made, by or on behalf of Client at any stage of a criminal prosecution (including but not limited to detention hearing, our client is the target of a federal a plea of guilty later withdrawn” is inadmissible trial or sentencing).(Emphasis added.) investigation. He is offered the against the defendant. It is well-settled that the In practice, the particular language of these opportunity to speak with prosecutors protections afforded under these rules can be agreements determines what triggering events Yand investigators so that they have “his side” waived in proffer agreements, thus opening the open the door to the admission of a client’s of the story before determining whether door for a client’s statements to be used against proffer statements at trial. For example, in charges will be pursued. You may ask yourself, him at trial. United States v. Mezzanatto, 513 United States v. Gonzalez, 309 F.3d 882 (5th “What do I have to lose?” Well, the answer is U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond People V. Castro: a New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting
    Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) Volume 7 Issue 1 Article 18 1991 Beyond People v. Castro: A New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting John Caleb Dougherty Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp Recommended Citation John C. Dougherty, Beyond People v. Castro: A New Standard of Admissibility for DNA Fingerprinting, 7 J. Contemp. Health L. & Pol'y 269 (1991). Available at: https://scholarship.law.edu/jchlp/vol7/iss1/18 This Comment is brought to you for free and open access by CUA Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Contemporary Health Law & Policy (1985-2015) by an authorized editor of CUA Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. BEYOND PEOPLE V. CASTRO: A NEW STANDARD OF ADMISSIBILITY FOR DNA FINGERPRINTING Forensic science' employs a wide range of identification techniques2 in an effort to link physical evidence to a particular individual. Forensic serolo- gists3 attempt to identify suspects from traces of blood, semen, saliva, or urine.4 The most recent and potentially greatest contribution to forensic sci- ence is DNA typing.5 The so-called "DNA fingerprint"6 has evolved from the fields of molecular biology, chemistry, and population genetics,7 and of- fers a new and potentially more precise way to establish the identity of 1. Forensic science in its broadest definition is the application of science to law. As our society has grown more complex it has become more dependant on rules of law to regulate the activities of its members. Forensic science offers the knowledge and technology of science to the definition and enforcement of such laws.
    [Show full text]
  • Ohio Rules of Evidence
    OHIO RULES OF EVIDENCE Article I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101 Scope of rules: applicability; privileges; exceptions 102 Purpose and construction; supplementary principles 103 Rulings on evidence 104 Preliminary questions 105 Limited admissibility 106 Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements Article II JUDICIAL NOTICE 201 Judicial notice of adjudicative facts Article III PRESUMPTIONS 301 Presumptions in general in civil actions and proceedings 302 [Reserved] Article IV RELEVANCY AND ITS LIMITS 401 Definition of “relevant evidence” 402 Relevant evidence generally admissible; irrelevant evidence inadmissible 403 Exclusion of relevant evidence on grounds of prejudice, confusion, or undue delay 404 Character evidence not admissible to prove conduct; exceptions; other crimes 405 Methods of proving character 406 Habit; routine practice 407 Subsequent remedial measures 408 Compromise and offers to compromise 409 Payment of medical and similar expenses 410 Inadmissibility of pleas, offers of pleas, and related statements 411 Liability insurance Article V PRIVILEGES 501 General rule Article VI WITNESS 601 General rule of competency 602 Lack of personal knowledge 603 Oath or affirmation Rule 604 Interpreters 605 Competency of judge as witness 606 Competency of juror as witness 607 Impeachment 608 Evidence of character and conduct of witness 609 Impeachment by evidence of conviction of crime 610 Religious beliefs or opinions 611 Mode and order of interrogation and presentation 612 Writing used to refresh memory 613 Impeachment by self-contradiction
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES' JAMES PROFFER PURSUANT to RULE 801(D)(2)(E) ______
    Case 1:07-cr-00090-WYD Document 146 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 1 of 27 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Criminal Action No. 07-cr-00090-WYD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. B&H MAINTENANCE & CONSTRUCTION, INC., a New Mexico corporation; 2. JON PAUL SMITH a/k/a J.P. SMITH; and 3. LANDON R. MARTIN, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ UNITED STATES' JAMES PROFFER PURSUANT TO RULE 801(d)(2)(E) ______________________________________________________________________________ Pursuant to the Court's Order of November 13, 2007, the United States submits the following proffer supporting admission of coconspirator statements pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. I. Introduction Count One of the Indictment charges the Defendants with violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conspiring to rig bids submitted to BP America Production Company ("BP America") for the construction of pipelines to transport natural gas from its wells in the Upper San Juan Basin in Colorado to elsewhere in the United States. The conspiracy began in or about June 2005 and continued until December 2005. In order to assist the Court in its preliminary determination of the admissibility of Case 1:07-cr-00090-WYD Document 146 Filed 12/12/2007 Page 2 of 27 coconspirator statements at trial, the United States submits this proffer, which will outline some of the evidence the United States intends to present at trial.1 Section II of this proffer provides a brief overview of the conspirators, the victim of the conspiracy, and the bid rigging conspiracy charged in Count One of the Indictment.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Macon Division
    Case 5:08-cr-00040-HL -CHW Document 284 Filed 02/11/09 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA MACON DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, : : v. : : BERRIEN AND LISA SUTTON, : Criminal Action No. : 5:08-CR-40(HL) Defendants. : : : ORDER Before the Court is Defendant Berrien Sutton’s Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. 95). For the following reasons, Sutton’s Motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Motion is granted only to the extent that Sutton seeks to prohibit the Government from directly using against him statements he made after April 2007. The Government can still make derivative use of all statements given after April 2007. I. BACKGROUND Berrien Sutton is currently under Indictment for conspiracy to commit honest services fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and multiple counts of mail fraud. The charges against Sutton arise out of a federal investigation into allegations of official corruption in the Alapaha Judicial Circuit in South Georgia. Before being indicted, Sutton met with federal investigators and prosecutors on several different 1 Case 5:08-cr-00040-HL -CHW Document 284 Filed 02/11/09 Page 2 of 8 occasions to provide information that would assist them in their investigation. The dates of those meetings were (1) December 14, 2006, (2) January 1, 2007,1 (3) March 12, 2007, (4) March 29, 2007, (5) May 9, 2007, and (6) May 22, 2007. In his Motion to Suppress Statements, Sutton moves to suppress all statements he made to the federal authorities.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Circuit Clarifies Scope of Proffer Agreement Waivers
    G THE B IN EN V C R H E S A N 8 8 D 8 B 1 AR SINCE WWW. NYLJ.COM VOLUME 256—NO. 103 TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2016 Outside Counsel Expert Analysis Second Circuit Clarifies Scope Of Proffer Agreement Waivers lthough securing a coopera- both to white-collar criminal defense tion agreement after proffer- practitioners and to those who prac- ing to the government can tice in the gang-related context in which lead to enormous benefits for Rosemond arose. those who successfully navi- By And Proffer Agreements Agate the process, the negative conse- Harry Helen P. quences of a failed proffer are profound. Sandick O’Reilly The standard proffer agreements in Assessing the risks of whether to proffer the Southern and Eastern Districts of and enter into a proffer agreement is an Mezzanatto, 513 U.S. 196 (1995) that New York typically protect the defen- important part of federal criminal prac- the protections afforded under Rule dant from the government’s use of tice. These written agreements between 410 can be waived in proffer agree- factual assertions made during plea federal prosecutors and a subject of a ments, thereby opening the door for agreements. This is necessary because criminal investigation set the ground the factual assertions made in the proffer rules for the future use by the govern- are inevitably inculpatory: The point of ment of a defendant’s statements made The Second Circuit clarified a proffer is for a defendant to admit his during a proffer session. how and when certain defense participation in the crime and to explain The agreements typically involve a tactics at trial can open the who else was involved in committing the partial waiver of the protections pro- door to the introduction of the crime.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief for Appellee ______
    BRIEF FOR APPELLEE _________________________ DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS _________________________ No. 19-CO-392 _________________________ KEITH LITTLEPAGE, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee. _________________________ APPEAL FROM THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CRIMINAL DIVISION _________________________ MICHAEL R. SHERWIN Acting United States Attorney ELIZABETH TROSMAN JOHN P. MANNARINO PAMELA SATTERFIELD * ELIZABETH GABRIEL MD Bar Assistant United States Attorneys * Counsel for Oral Argument 555 Fourth Street, NW, Room 8104 Washington, D.C. 20530 [email protected] Cr. No. 2011-CF1-4384 (202) 252-6829 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page The Trial ............................................................................................. 2 The Government’s Evidence ........................................................ 2 The Defense Evidence .................................................................. 7 The Post-Conviction Proceedings ....................................................... 8 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................................ 26 ARGUMENT ........................................................................... 27 I. The Trial Court Did Not Plainly Err in Failing to Order a Manual Keyboard Search or Abuse its Discretion in Determining That Appellant Was Not Entitled to Discovery of CODIS Information Under Rule 16. ..................... 27 A. Applicable Legal Principles ................................................ 28 1. CODIS .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Military Rules of Evidence
    PART III MILITARY RULES OF EVIDENCE SECTION I GENERAL PROVISIONS Rule 101. Scope the error materially prejudices a substantial right of (a) Scope. These rules apply to courts-martial the party and: proceedings to the extent and with the exceptions (1) if the ruling admits evidence, a party, on the stated in Mil. R. Evid. 1101. record: (b) Sources of Law. In the absence of guidance in (A) timely objects or moves to strike; and this Manual or these rules, courts-martial will apply: (B) states the specific ground, unless it was (1) First, the Federal Rules of Evidence and the apparent from the context; or case law interpreting them; and (2) if the ruling excludes evidence, a party in- (2) Second, when not inconsistent with subdivi- forms the military judge of its substance by an offer of proof, unless the substance was apparent from the sion (b)(1), the rules of evidence at common law. context. (c) Rule of Construction. Except as otherwise pro- (b) Not Needing to Renew an Objection or Offer of vided in these rules, the term “military judge” in- Proof. Once the military judge rules definitively on cludes the president of a special court-martial the record admitting or excluding evidence, either without a military judge and a summary court-mar- before or at trial, a party need not renew an objec- tial officer. tion or offer of proof to preserve a claim of error for appeal. Discussion (c) Review of Constitutional Error. The standard Discussion was added to these Rules in 2013. The Discussion provided in subdivision (a)(2) does not apply to er- itself does not have the force of law, even though it may describe rors implicating the United States Constitution as it legal requirements derived from other sources.
    [Show full text]
  • Execution Date Set for April 20, 2017 In
    EXECUTION DATE SET FOR APRIL 20, 2017 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS LEDELL LEE ) ) Appellant ) ) vs. ) Case No. CR108-160 ) STATE OF ARKANSAS, ) ) Appellee. ) MOTION TO RECALL THE MANDATE AND FOR STAY OF EXECUTION Mr. Lee respectfully moves under Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 5-3 for the Court to recall its mandate issued in Lee v. State, 308 S.W.3d 596 (Ark. 2009), for the reasons set forth in the accompanying memorandum and briefing. Mr. Lee further moves the Court issue a stay of his execution, pursuant to Ark. Code § 16-90-506. In support of the motion, Mr. Lee states as follows: 1. Ledell Lee is confined under a sentence of death and scheduled for execution on Thursday, April 20, 2017. 2. Under Ark. Code § 16-90-506(a)(1), this Court has the authority to stay the execution of a death sentence in light of “any competent judicial proceeding.” A motion to recall the mandate is such a competent proceeding. Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 5-3(d). The Court will grant a stay when 1 a case presents a constitutional issue that is “bona fide and not frivolous” but cannot be resolved before the scheduled execution. Singleton v. Norris, 964 S.W.2d 366, 372 (Ark. 1998) (opinion on rehearing). 3. Mr. Lee’s motion to recall the mandate raises bona fide, meritorious issues under both the Constitution of the United States and the laws of the State of Arkansas. 4. The factual issues identified in Mr. Lee’s brief supporting his motion to recall the mandate include a complicated procedural history spanning more than twenty years, expert declarations containing neuropsychological testimony, and fact-intensive inquiries into the extraordinary circumstances that have led to this moment.
    [Show full text]
  • §1.5 Offers of Proof
    GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works Faculty Scholarship 2018 §1.5 Offers of Proof Christopher B. Mueller University of Colorado Law School Laird Kirkpatrick George Washington University Law School, [email protected] Lisea Richter University of Oklahoma College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.gwu.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Mueller, Christopher B. and Kirkpatrick, Laird C. and Richter, Liesa, §1.5 Offers of Proof (2018). C. Mueller, L. Kirkpatrick, & L. Richter, Evidence §1.05 (6th ed. Wolters Kluwer 2018) ; GWU Law School Public Law Research Paper No. 2018-50; GWU Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2018-50. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3275006 This Chapter is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in GW Law Faculty Publications & Other Works by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. §1.5 Offers of Proof In order to preserve for appeal arguments that the trial court erred in excluding evidence, it is necessary under FRE 103 to make an adequate offer of proof unless one of several exceptions applies. Excluding evidence where no offer of proof was made is unlikely to be plain error because the absence of the offer usually produces a record that does not disclose the error. Reasons to require offers The reasons to require offers of proof are to let the trial judge “reevaluate his decision in light of the actual evidence to be offered” and help the reviewing court decide whether “the error affects the substantial rights” of the offering party.1 Reviewing courts often comment that without an offer of proof they cannot evaluate claims of error, that the mere possibility of error in excluding evidence is not ground for reversal, and that assessing error in such cases is difficult or impossible.
    [Show full text]
  • The Best Evidence Principle
    Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons Faculty Publications 1988 The Best Evidence Principle Dale A. Nance Case Western University School of Law, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications Part of the Evidence Commons Repository Citation Nance, Dale A., "The Best Evidence Principle" (1988). Faculty Publications. 463. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/faculty_publications/463 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. The Best Evidence Principle Dale A Nance* The first therefore, and most signal Rule, in relation to Evidence, is this, That a Man must have the 'J),tmost Evidence, the Nature of the Fact is capable of; For the Design of the Law is to come to rigid Demonstration in Matters of Right, and there can be no Demonstration of a Fact without the best Evidence that the Nature of the Thing is capable of; less Evidence doth create but Opinion and Surmise, and does not leave a Man the entire Satisfaction, that arises from Demonstration. -Chief Baron Geoffrey Gilbert (c.1726) 1 While some modern opinions still refer to the "best evidence" notion as if it were today a general governing legal principle[,] most would adopt the view of modern text writers that there is no such general rule. The only actual rule that the "best evidence" phrase denotes today is the rule requiring the production of the original [of a] writing.
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Southern District of Indiana Indianapolis Division
    Case 4:15-cr-00028-TWP-VTW Document 570 Filed 05/23/17 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Case No. 4:15-cr-0028-TWP-VTW ) CARLOS SHELTON, ) - 01 TERRANCE BRASHER, ) - 07 BRANDY GUM, ) - 11 ) Defendants. ) ENTRY ON GOVERNMENT’S SANTIAGO PROFFER The Government has filed under seal, a Santiago proffer. (Filing No. 526). Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence provides that statements by co-conspirator’s made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy is not hearsay excluded under Rule 802. When a statement of a co-conspirator which would otherwise have been regarded as hearsay is proffered, a preliminary question arises under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 104 requires a preliminary determination by the trial judge as to the admissibility of the declaration of a co-conspirator. Under Rule 104 the competence of a co-conspirator declaration justifying its admissibility depends upon whether or not the existence of the conspiracy has been sufficiently established by independent evidence, and whether under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) the declaration was made during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. The trial judge retains the option of conditionally admitting the co-conspirator declaration evidence before the conspiracy has been independently established, but subject to the subsequent fulfillment of that critical condition. The standard to be applied during this competency determination is, “…if it is more likely than not that the declarant and the defendant were members of a conspiracy 1 Case 4:15-cr-00028-TWP-VTW Document 570 Filed 05/23/17 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID> when the hearsay statement was made, and that the statement was in furtherance of the conspiracy, the hearsay is admissible.” Unites States v.
    [Show full text]