Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION 3:23-cr-00013-TES-CHW
08-17-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. PERCY HARRIS, Defendant.
ORDER
TILMAN E. SELF, III, JUDGE
On August 10, 2023, the Government filed a “Motion Seeking Disclosure of Limited and Specific Portions of the United States' Probations' Chronicle Log Entries Material to this Case” [Doc. 30]. The Government's Motion asks the Court to permit disclosure of “very specific portions” of Defendant Percy Harris' probation file “related to the trial and to matters known to USPO Medina and Fulford directly pertaining to the SORNA violation.” [Doc. 30, p. 3]. The Government asserts the “information recorded is material to the government's case in chief[.]” [Id.].
Before the Government filed the instant Motion, the United States Probation Office notified the Court of the Government's request for access to the Office's chronicle log. In response, the Court instructed both the Government and Defendant's counsel via email that if either side intended to request the United States Probation Office's file, the party must file a motion with the Court outlining the specific documents and its materiality to the trial.
After reviewing the Government's Motion, the Court instructed the United States Probation Office to provide it with the relevant documents for an in-camera review. See, e.g., United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194, 1208 (9th Cir. 2004) (describing the in-camera review process as suitable for deciding issues related to a defendant's probation file); United States v. Garcia, 562 F.3d 947, 953 (8th Cir. 2009); United States v. Stanfield, 360 F.3d 1346, 1355 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In its review, the Court redacted information that is irrelevant to the charges in this case, any personal identifying information of third parties, and other information deemed unnecessary or unresponsive to the Government's Motion or Defendant's right to receive exculpatory information.
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Government's Motion. The parties are reminded that the Court's disclosure of these documents should not be construed as a decision on the admissibility of any document or statement therein. The parties are instructed to treat these documents as confidential and ensure that they are not disseminated improperly.
SO ORDERED.