U.S. v. Makki

4 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Weekes

    CASE NO. 17-20155 (E.D. Mich. Aug. 17, 2018)   Cited 3 times

    Weekes cites two cases where indictments charging violations of Section 1349 survived motions to dismiss. See United States v. Walters, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48716, at *8 (E.D. Ky. Apr. 12, 2016) (Section 1349 case); United States v. Makki, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17413, at *21-22 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2007) (Section 1347 case). In Walters, there were 99 separately charged health care fraud counts in addition to the conspiracy charge.

  2. United States v. Fitzgerald

    CASE NO. 1:16-CR-123 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 30, 2017)

    This rank speculation by counsel is woefully insufficient to tip the balance in favor of disclosure. See Sharp, 778 F.2d at 1187; see, e.g., Sales, 247 F. App'x at 734 (suggesting that he could have a possible alibi was insufficient to justify disclosure because the defendant "only speculates as to what disclosure [of the confidential informant's identity] might do; he has not established that disclosure would have substantively assisted his defense or that disclosure was essential to a fair trial") (citation omitted); United States v. Makki, No. 06-20324, 2007 WL 781821, at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 13, 2007) (refusing to require the government to reveal identity of confidential sources, noting that "[u]sworn assertions of . . . counsel will not suffice") (citation omitted); United States v. Edelin, 128 F. Supp. 2d 23, 33-34 (D.D.C. 2001) (defendant's "mere speculation that the informer might possibly be of some assistance is not sufficient to meet [defendant's] burden") (quotation marks and citation omitted). Also weighing against disclosure is the fact that there is nothing in the record to suggest that the primary confidential informant, CS#5, was anything more than a tipster; he was not an eye witness to any of the alleged crimes set forth in the indictment.

  3. United States v. Dimora

    836 F. Supp. 2d 534 (N.D. Ohio 2011)   Cited 13 times

    These bare suspicions are insufficient to justify requiring the government to identify this, or any, confidential source. See, e.g., United States v. Makki, No. 06–20324, 2007 WL 781821, at *3 (E.D.Mich. Mar. 13, 2007) (refusing to require the government to reveal the identity of confidential sources, noting that “[u]nsworn assertions of ... counsel will not suffice”). In Sharp, the Sixth Circuit observed that “in analyzing [the issue of whether a confidential source must be disclosed], courts have traditionally utilized in camera interviews in order to assess the relevance and possible helpfulness of the informant's identity to the defense.

  4. State v. Mongold

    220 W. Va. 259 (W. Va. 2007)   Cited 13 times

    Dixon v. State, 712 N.E.2d 1086, 1092 (Ind.Ct.App. 1999). See also United States v. Makki, No. 06-20324, 2007 WL 781821 (E.D.Mich. Mar.13, 2007) (after denying defendant's request for notice of Rule 404(b) evidence because government stated it would not introduce such evidence, trial court warned, "the Government is hereby cautioned that it will need `good cause' to be able to introduce 404(b) evidence at trial if Defendant is not provided reasonable notice of the general nature of any such evidence at least two weeks in advance of trial"). This is particularly true under the facts of this case.