U.S. v. Miller

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff v. BERTRAM CASE "CASEY" MILLER…

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Arkansas, Western Division

Date published: Jul 11, 2006

No. 4:04CR00281-02 JLH (E.D. Ark. Jul. 11, 2006)

Opinion

No. 4:04CR00281-02 JLH.

July 11, 2006

ORDER

J. HOLMES, District Judge

Bertram Case "Casey" Miller has filed a motion for production of alleged co-conspirator statements and for suppression of any statements that fail to meet the criteria of Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. The request for production is governed by 18 U.S.C. § 3500, commonly known as the Jencks Act. That statute provides, in pertinent part:

(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.

(b) After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.

Subsection (a) prohibits the Court from ordering the government to produce a statement of a government witness until the witness has testified on direct examination. Subsection (b) directs the Court to order the United States to produce the statement, upon motion of the defendant, after the witness has testified on direct examination. Although the Court wholeheartedly agrees with Miller's argument that early production of the statements would be of great benefit to Miller and the Court, the Court does not have the authority to order the government to produce those statements at this time.

Because the Court cannot order the government to produce the statements at this time, there is no way for the Court to review the statements to determine whether they are admissible under Rule 801(d)(2)(E).

For these reasons, Bertram Case "Casey" Miller's motion is DENIED. Document #141.

IT IS SO ORDERED.