Opinion
No. 05 CR. 0694 (VM).
January 3, 2006
DECISION AND ORDER
Defendant Raheen Davis ("Davis") is charged with one count of distributing and possessing with intent to distribute approximately 3.6 grams of cocaine base. On November 8, 2005, Davis filed a motion seeking an order: (1) suppressing a statement allegedly made by Davis to police following Davis' arrest, on the ground that such statement was obtained in violation of Davis' rights under the Fifth and Sixth Amendment; (2) precluding the Government from introducing narcotics allegedly recovered from Davis at trial, on the ground that the Government "cannot establish a proper chain of custody connecting those drugs to defendant Davis" (see Affirmation of Michael Young, attorney for Defendant Raheen Davis, dated November 2, 2005, at ¶ 2); and (3) requiring the Government to disclose Rule 404 (b) evidence which it intends to introduce at trial. On December 1, 2005, the Government submitted a letter brief opposing Davis' motion.
The Court has reviewed the parties' submissions and concludes that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to address whether Davis' statement to police may properly be admitted into evidence at trial. Davis asserts that following his arrest on August 17, 2005, Davis "told the police several times that [he] wanted to talk to a lawyer." (Affirmation of Raheen Davis, dated November 2, 2005, at 1.) Davis further alleges that "more than four hours after my arrest, police detective Killen, who had apparently just come on duty, and several other officers proceeded to question me without a lawyer." (See id.) The Government contests Davis' assertion that Davis asked for an attorney and alleges that Davis was informed of his rights and signed a form acknowledging that he understood his rights and waived his rights prior to questioning. The Government concedes that an evidentiary hearing is required to resolve this factual dispute. (See Government's Letter Brief, dated November 30, 2005, at 5.)
The Court concludes that an evidentiary hearing on the admissibility of the narcotics allegedly recovered from Davis is not warranted because the Government's ability to link the recovered narcotics to Davis is an issue for trial.
Finally, the Court concludes that Davis' request for disclosure of evidence that the Government intends to offer pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404 (b) is premature. The Government has asserted that it intends to make a motion in limine for the admission of Rule 404 (b) evidence approximately two weeks before trial. In the absence of any showing that the evidence is required earlier, the Court denies Davis' request for immediate disclosure.
SO ORDERED.