Opinion
CR-S-19-CR-107 KJM
01-25-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RONALD YANDELL et. al., Defendant.
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874) MARCIA A. MORRISSEY (SBN 66921) Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK D. BRADY
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874)
MARCIA A. MORRISSEY (SBN 66921)
Attorneys for Defendant PATRICK D. BRADY
UNOPPOSED REQUEST AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS RONALD YANDELL, DANNY TROXELL, WILLIAM SYLVESTER, BRANT DANIEL, JASON CORBETT AND PATRICK BRADY'S LEGAL TEAM(S) USE OF COMPUTER AND COMPUTER ACCESSORIES DURING LEGAL VISITS AT CALIFORNIA STATE PRISON, SACRAMENTO
Defendants Ronald Yandell, Danny Troxell, William Sylvester, Brant Daniel, Jason Corbett and Patrick Brady, unopposed by the United States Attorney's Office, respectfully request the court find and order that:
1. Defendants Yandell, Troxell, Sylvester, Daniel, Corbett and Brady are housed in/at California State Prison, Sacramento (“CSP-Sac”). The noted defendants are scheduled for trial beginning on March 20, 2023. (Defendant Michael Torres is also housed in/at CSP-Sac, but he is not presently set for trial).
Due to the filing of the superseding indictment (December 8, 2022) in the is matter (ECF No. 1375) alleging death penalty offenses against Mr. Yandell, Mr. Sylvester, Mr. Daniel, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Brady, it is anticipated the March 20, 2023 trial date will be vacated at the January 25, 2023 status conference.
2. The discovery in this case is voluminous. Presently, the government has produced: in excess of 114,953 pages of documents, 624 hours of audio recordings, 151 hours of video footage, 6,178 location data coordinates, 3043 ESI files, wiretap interceptions from five target telephones, and forensic reports for eight mobile devices and 255,158 Native files. In all, the government has produced over 378 GB's of discovery in electronic form. Discovery production is ongoing and additional materials are anticipated.
3. Pursuant to California Department of Corrections policy, as interpreted by CSP-Sac, only attorneys are allowed to bring in electronic devices to review discovery with the defendants. However, if a paralegal or investigator is meeting with a defendant, the paralegal (or investigator) must print all the material to review with the defendant. Moreover, CSP-Sac does not allow paralegals and/or investigators to bring in a bag or briefcase when entering the facility.
4. The volume of discovery and visitation restrictions limiting access to the noted defendants, necessitate allowing all defense team members for the noted defendants to meet their respective clients and use a laptop, tablet and/or other electric devises to review the discovery materials.
5. To effectively do so requires access to computers and technology that enable review of both audio and visual discovery materials; and requires accessories such as a wireless mouse, external hard drive(s) and, external monitor in order to expedite the review in the limited amount of time available for legal visits.
6. Such accessories can be logged into the prison's computer log allowing the facility to track the computer and related accessories.
7. The use of these computers and accessories at legal visits is necessary on an ongoing basis and is to continue up to the conclusion of the above referenced matter.
8. The government does not oppose this request based upon the approval of officials at CSP-Sac. Should any security issues arise, or any misuse of computer-related devices occur, or any other related concerns arise, the United States reserves its right to revisit whether this accommodation through stipulation should be terminated.
9. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that members of the legal teams (including paralegals and investigators) for defendants Yandell, Troxell, Sylvester, Daniel, Corbett and Brady, be granted use of their private computer and accessories, including a wireless mouse, external hard drive (data storage device) and external monitor as necessary for the sole purpose of reviewing computer-based discovery and materials, during legal visits at CSP-Sac on an ongoing basis without being required to present an established court order at each visit, and this order will remain on an ongoing basis through the conclusion of the above-referenced matter.
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.