Opinion
Criminal No. 3:04-CR-059-D.
March 3, 2005
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Edwin T. McBirney III ("McBirney") has filed two discovery motions that the court resolves as follows.
I Motion for Pretrial Notice Under Rule 404(b) of Intention to Introduce Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts
McBirney requests notice under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) of the government's intent to introduce evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts, requests disclosure of the identity of persons whom the government intends to rely upon to demonstrate the evidence, and requests disclosure of the general nature of such evidence. In responding to the motion, the government acknowledges that it intends to introduce such evidence at trial, and it provides a brief description of what the evidence will prove. It maintains that by doing so it has provided proper notice of Rule 404(b) evidence in its response. The government maintains that the court should deny McBirney's request for a separate designation of Rule 404(b) witnesses. It maintains that the names of all of its witnesses will be provided in accordance with the court's pretrial order.
Rule 404(b) does not require the disclosure of the identity of the witnesses who will offer evidence designated by the Rule. See Rule 404(b). It only requires that "upon request of the accused the prosecution . . . provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial." Id. The government states that it has provided such notice. If the government has complied with Rule 404(b) as the court now interprets the Rule, it need not do more.
II Motion for Pretrial Production and Inspection of Evidence and Information Which May Lead to Evidence (Brady v. Maryland)
McBirney requests that the court order the government to provide him with all evidence bearing on his guilt or innocence and relevant to punishment that is favorable to him, either because of its exculpatory nature or its value in impeaching government witnesses or contradicting government evidence. McBirney designates eight categories of information he seeks. To the extent the government does not object to the information McBirney requests, the motion is denied as moot. The government notes that it is aware of its obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government will be expected to comply with its obligations under Brady, Giglio, and the applicable rules and statutes. To the extent McBirney seeks greater relief, the motion is denied.