From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

U.S. v. Medrano

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Mar 29, 2004
No. CR 03-0895 LH (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2004)

Opinion

No. CR 03-0895 LH

March 29, 2004


ORDER


THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Defendant's Motion for Particularized Discovery Request (Docket No. 16), filed March 9, 2004. The Court, having considered the pleadings submitted by the parties, the arguments of counsel, the applicable law and otherwise being fully advised, finds that the Defendant's motion is not well taken and should be denied.

The Defendant, indicted on a single count of sale of methamphetamine, has requested that the United States reveal its confidential informant's identity and numerous items of personal information. The government responds that it has provided the Defendant with the impeachment evidence required by Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and the Defendant is simply not entitled to any further discovery regarding the informant, including his identity. The United States is correct in that assertion, and Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53, 62 (1957) is not to the contrary. As the prosecution pointed ont, Roviaro involved an informant who did not testify against the defendant and whose identity was never revealed. The government's informant in this case will be called as a witness and subject to cross-examination, and the prosecution has agreed to reveal his identity to the Defendant prior to trial. Nothing more is required of the United States.

The Defendant also objected to the manner in which the United States responded to his request for the confidential informant's personal information. However, the government cannot be required to share information it does not have. The Unites States contends that it has no knowledge of the informant's criminal, psychiatric, or drug use history, and the Defendant has not shown this to be false. The Defendant's motion as to this evidence is therefore denied.

The Defendant has also requested that the United States reveal information regarding the consideration paid to the informant by the government, both in this case and other cases. The United States has agreed to disclose the requested information about this case, but opposes the Defendant's request as to other cases. As the United States argued, the Defendant has offered no authority for his request for information regarding other cases and has not shown how that information is relevant to this case. The motion as to this evidence is therefore denied.

Finally, the Drug Enforcement Administration executed search warrants on the homes of the Defendant's son, David Medrano, his nephew, Daniel Tarango, and Estella Esparza-Tarango. The Defendant has requested that the United States disclose the search warrants, the supporting affidavits, and the evidence seized in the searches. The government correctly points out that this material is not material to preparing the Defendant's defense and that the United States does not intend to offer it at trial. The Defendant has not shown that the evidence seized in the searches was obtained from or belongs to the Defendant. There is therefore no ground on which to require the United States to surrender this evidence. FED. R. CRIM P. 16(a)(1)(E). The Defendant's motion as to these items is therefore denied. IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant's Motion for Particularized Discovery Request is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

U.S. v. Medrano

United States District Court, D. New Mexico
Mar 29, 2004
No. CR 03-0895 LH (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2004)
Case details for

U.S. v. Medrano

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOSE MEDRANO, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, D. New Mexico

Date published: Mar 29, 2004

Citations

No. CR 03-0895 LH (D.N.M. Mar. 29, 2004)