Opinion
3:13-CR-0017-LRH-VPC
12-19-2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JAMES JEREMY PAINTER Defendant.
ORDER
Before the court are defendant James Jeremy Painter's ("Painter") motion for notice of intent to introduce evidence (Doc. #21); motion for production of personnel files (Doc. #22); motion for discovery (Doc. #23); and motion to suppress (Doc. #24).
Refers to the court's docket number.
I. Facts and Background
On February 13, 2013, Painter was indicted on a single count of assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 113(a)(3), 1151, and 1152 relating to an altercation within the boundaries of the Washoe Indian Reservation on or about January 24, 2013. Doc. #11. Thereafter, Painter filed the various pretrial motions. Doc. ##21, 22, 23, 24.
II. Motion for Notice of Intent to Introduce Evidence (Doc. #21)
In his first motion, Painter seeks an order from the court requiring the United States to provide reasonable notice of at least twenty-one (21) days before trial of its intent to use evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts that would fall within the purview of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). See Doc. #21. The United States does not oppose Painter's request, and agrees than an order requiring notice of at least thirty (30) days before trial would be appropriate in this action. See Doc. 27. Accordingly, the court shall grant Painter's motion and require the government to provide notice of its intent, if any, to introduce evidence that would fall within the purview of Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) at least thirty (30) days before trial.
III. Motion for Production of Personnel Files (Doc. #22)
In his second pretrial motion, Painter seeks an order requiring the United States to inspect and produce all personnel files of federal law enforcement officers and federal task force officers that the United States intends to call as witnesses at trial pursuant to United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29, 31 (9th Cir. 1991). See Doc. #22. The United States does not oppose Painter's motion and intends to comply with all the Henthorn requirements as to all the federal law enforcement officers and officers assigned to a federal task force that it intends to call in its case-in-chief. See Doc. #26. Accordingly, the court shall grant Painter's motion for production of the subject witnesses' personnel files.
IV. Motion for Discovery (Doc. #23)
In his third pretrial motion, Painter seeks an order from the court directing the United States to provide "information, material, and/or evidence concerning the alleged victim's specific acts of violence or aggression and/or character trait of violence or aggression." Doc. #23, p.1. Painter seeks such evidence pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 402, and 404(a)(2). Once again, the United States does not oppose Painter's motion and states that it "has and will continue to abide by all discovery obligations in the present case . . . [including] providing character evidence of the victim that is in the possession of the Government." Doc. #25. Accordingly, the court shall grant Painter's motion for the requested discovery.
V. Motion to Suppress (Doc. #24)
In his final pretrial motion, Painter seeks an order from the court suppressing any statements he made to Washoe Tribal Police Officers before his Miranda rights were given. See Doc. #24. In particular, Painter seeks to suppress statements he made to Washoe Tribal Police Officer Brindley concerning his history and relationship with the victim and the events leading up to and immediately preceding the charged assault. The United States does not oppose Painter's motion to suppress as it relates to any statements he made to Washoe Tribal Police Officers on January 23, 2013. See Doc. #28. Accordingly, the court shall grant Painter's motion to suppress the identified statements.
See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
--------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion for notice of intent to introduce evidence (Doc. #21); motion for production of personnel files (Doc. #22); motion for discovery (Doc. #23); and motion to suppress (Doc. #24) are GRANTED in accordance with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
___________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE