Opinion
7:23-cr-065-WLS-TQL-14
10-22-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. AMJED HASAN HAJJAJ, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE.
On July 12, 2023, Defendant Amjed Hasan Hajjaj (“Hajjaj”), along with nineteen additional Defendants were indicted by a grand jury in a forty-three count indictment (Doc. 1). Before the Court is Defendant Amjed Hajjaj's Motion to Compel Disclosure of Cooperating Defendants and Informants (Doc. 456) (“Motion to Compel”). The Government has responded to Motion to Compel, which is now ripe for decision.
In his Motion to Compel, Defendant requests the Government be compelled to disclose the identities of any cooperating defendants, informants, and witnesses involved in this case. Defendant requests the Government disclose (a) the identities of individuals who cooperated with the Government in its investigation or prosecution of Amjed Hasan Hajjaj; (b) any agreements, inducements, etc. offered to such individuals in exchange for their cooperation or testimony; (c) any exculpatory or impeaching evidence related to such individuals; (d) any statements made by cooperating individuals used to support the charges against the Defendant; and (e) any information affecting the reliability of such individuals.
In response, the Government states it has provided Defendant, through counsel, with extensive materials detailing the use of a confidential informant, payments made to said informant, and other potentially impeaching material regarding the informant. Further, any “deals” made with Defendant's co-defendants will be in the form of plea agreements which are available to Defendant's counsel via CM/ECF. The Government advises that if other agreements are reached, they will be provided to Defendant.
Based on the foregoing, it appears that at this time the Government has complied with its obligations to Defendant. The Court notes that with respect to exculpatory evidence, the Government must timely and affirmatively produce such evidence to Defendant's counsel, and said duty is ongoing. The Government provided a response describing its production of such evidence. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Compel (Doc. 456) is DENIED, AS MOOT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
SO ORDERED.