Carillo v. U.S.

19 Citing cases

  1. Garcia v. Government of V.I

    D.C. Crim. App. No. 2005/018, Re: Super. Ct. Crim. 264/2002 (D.V.I. Sep. 25, 2006)   Cited 7 times

    The Fifth's Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause protects against multiple punishments for the same offense. See U.S. Const. Amdt. V;see also, Carillo v. United States, 995 F.Supp. 587, 593-94(D.V.I. App. Div. 1998) (citing North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717(1969)); United States v. Xavier, 2 F.3d 1281(3d Cir. 1993). Therefore, where two different statutes describe the same offense, separate punishments are precluded, absent clear legislative intent to the contrary.

  2. Restitullo v. United States

    20cv15562 (EP) (D.N.J. Dec. 20, 2023)

    United States v. Parsons, 2015 WL 857313, at *15 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2015); see also Carillo v. United States, 995 F.Supp. 587, 263 (D.V.I. 1998) (โ€œThere is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none.โ€)

  3. Harvey v. Artis

    1:22-cv-26 (W.D. Mich. Oct. 24, 2023)

    However, โ€œthere is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with [P]etitioner.โ€ Carillo v. United States, 995 F.Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998). Although Petitioner โ€œha[d] a constitutional right to participate in the making of certain decisions which are fundamental to his defense,โ€ Johnson v. Duckworth, 793 F.2d 898, 900 (7th Cir. 1986), the โ€œactual access to the hard copies of the discovery documentsโ€ was not fundamental to Petitioner's defense.

  4. United States v. McHugh

    CRIMINAL ACTION 21-453 (JDB) (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2023)   Cited 9 times
    Denying selective prosecution comparing January 6 defendants to various political protestors

    Opp'n to Mot. for Release at 12-13; see, e.g., Carillo v. United States, 995 F.Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) (โ€œ[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none.โ€)

  5. Woodley v. United States

    No. 3:19-CV-209 (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 12, 2021)

    Even if Petitioner's claim were not conclusory, courts have found that, generally, the Constitution does not obligate an attorney to provide discovery materials to a criminally accused client, let alone one who has been convicted and is proceeding pro se. See e.g., Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none.").

  6. Carranza v. United States

    1:17CV80 (M.D.N.C. Sep. 28, 2020)

    To the extent Petitioner faults his trial counsel for not providing Petitioner with physical copies of the Government's discovery material (beyond the material he apparently spent seven hours examining), that argument falls short for the simple reason that Petitioner possessed no constitutional right to physical copies of discovery. See Noble v. United States, Nos. 2:10-CR-51-JRG, 2:16-CV-38-JRG, 2018 WL 4441240, at *11 (E.D. Tenn. Sept. 17, 2018) (unpublished) (noting that "courts have found that, generally, the Constitution does not obligate an attorney to provide discovery materials to a criminally accused client"); see also Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner.

  7. Moore v. United States

    No. 2:17-CV-140 (E.D. Tenn. Nov. 1, 2019)

    Even if Petitioner's claim were not conclusory, courts have found that, generally, the Constitution does not obligate an attorney to provide discovery materials to a criminally accused client. See e.g., Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none.").

  8. Groh v. United States

    No. 2:15-CR-69-RLJ-MCLC (E.D. Tenn. Jul. 1, 2019)

    Even if Petitioner's claim were not conclusory, courts have found that, generally, the Constitution does not obligate an attorney to provide discovery materials to a criminally accused client. See e.g., United States v. Stewart, No. CRIM.A. 08-124, 2011 WL 382206, at *4 (E.D. Ky. Jan. 4, 2011) ("The Court can find no authority suggesting that an attorney renders constitutionally ineffective assistance by failing to share discovery materials with the defendant."), report and recommendation adopted, No. CRIM. 08-124-ART, 2011 WL 381951 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 2, 2011); Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none."); but see United States v. Baptista, No. CR 10-0050 PJH, 2011 WL 738355, at *8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 23, 2011) (observing that "a failure to provide discovery to a client who has specifically asked to see it, is clearly not an acceptable way of representing a criminal defendant facing a ten year prison term").

  9. Jones v. United States

    CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 1:14-CR-8-CAP-JSA-1 (N.D. Ga. May. 13, 2019)

    And even so, the failure to share copies of the wiretap paperwork with Movant is not grounds to find Sadow ineffective. See, e.g., White v. Cason, 04-CV-75071, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103090, at *25-26 (E.D. Mich. Feb. 21) (counsel not ineffective; criminal defense attorney has no duty to share discovery documents with client), adopted by 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12715 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2006); Ramsden v. Warden, Dept. of Corrs., 02-138-B-S, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2377, at *28-29 (D. Me. Feb. 14) (holding that counsel was not ineffective, stating: "I could find no case that stood for the proposition that, in order to deliver constitutionally adequate representation, an attorney must provide his client in every case with hard copies of the discovery documents and investigative reports."), adopted by 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7101 (D. Me. Apr. 24, 2003); Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I.1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner.

  10. Noble v. United States

    No. 2:10-CR-51-JRG (E.D. Tenn. Sep. 17, 2018)   Cited 9 times
    Finding that "Petitioner's conclusory statements regarding [counsel's] failings do not state a claim cognizable under ยง 2255"

    Even if Petitioner's claim were not conclusory, courts have found that, generally, the Constitution does not obligate an attorney to provide discovery materials to a criminally accused client. See e.g., Carillo v. United States, 995 F. Supp. 587, 591 (D.V.I. 1998) ("[T]here is no constitutional duty to share discovery documents with petitioner. Petitioner cites no case law for this proposition, and this court finds none.").