Opinion
No. 04-40094-01-SAC.
December 9, 2004
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on defendant's motion to compel discovery (Dk. 27) and defendant's motion to suppress statement (Dk. 24). Defendant is charged with distribution of cocaine base.
MOTION TO COMPEL
In this motion, defendant seeks certain information regarding the confidential informant who assisted the Topeka Police Department in the events leading to defendant's arrest. After briefing this motion, the parties entered into an agreed order resolving all of defendant's requests except the following:
6. Provide counsel for the accused with any recorded memorandum of communication between the informant and government agents;
8. Disclose the extent of the informant's work in the investigation of other cases, and the benefit received by him; and
9. Disclose the existence of other informants, and provide the same requested information related to other informants.
Dk. 27. p. 2.
Defendant cites no authority in support of its requests for this information, other than Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 (1956). Because defendant has failed to show any legal basis for compelling the government to provide the specific information above, his request shall be denied.
MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Defendant moves the court to suppress statements defendant made on June 5, 2003, alleging that they were made involuntarily. Defendant is charged with five counts of distributing cocaine base on January 26, 2004, February 16, 2004, and April 30, 2004, on which dates a confidential informant assisted the Topeka Police Department by purchasing crack cocaine from defendant. The statement which defendant seeks to suppress occurred at least six months prior to the charged offenses and is apparently unrelated to those offenses. The sole allegation is that defendant's June 5th statement may be relevant for Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) purposes, or for purposes of impeachment in the event defendant testifies and denies prior usage of crack cocaine.
The parties presented no evidence on this motion at the hearing, although they were given opportunity to do so, choosing instead to submit the issue on the briefs. The court cannot rule on the merits of the issue of voluntariness without any evidence, however, so denies the motion as premature, and invites defendant to renew this motion in the event the case proceeds to trial and the statement in question may be offered for some purpose.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant's motion to compel discovery (Dk. 27) and motion to suppress statement (Dk. 24) are denied.