Opinion
Case No. 00-40045-01-DES.
June 8, 2000
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the court on defendant's Motion for Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence (Doc. 16), Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution (Doc. 17), and Amended Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution (Doc. 22). The parties have agreed to submit these motions to the court without a hearing. The court has reviewed the motions and is prepared to rule.
I. MOTION FOR DISCLOSURE OF 404(B) EVIDENCE (DOC. 16)
The defendant filed this motion requesting that the government disclose any information it intends on introducing at trial pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b). The government has indicated that it does not intend on introducing any such evidence. Because there is no controversy over the current motion, it will be denied as moot.
II. MOTION FOR DISCOVERY REGARDING SELECTIVE PROSECUTION (DOC. 17)
The Amended Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution was filed to correct certain errors contained in the original Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution. Therefore, the Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution (Doc. 17) will be denied as moot.
III. AMENDED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY REGARDING SELECTIVE PROSECUTION (DOC. 22)
The defendant is seeking a large amount of discovery from the government concerning their policies regarding the investigation and prosecution of drug crimes. This issue was raised before this court in the case of United States v. Davis, Case No. 99-40091-01-DES. In Davis, the court found that the defendant had not made a credible showing that similarly situated people were being treated differently. Therefore, in a Memorandum and Order filed April 21, 2000, the court denied the motion for discovery in Davis based upon United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 470 (1996). United States v. Davis, No. 99-40091-01-DES (D.Kan. filed April 21, 2000).
This motion makes essentially the same arguments and relies upon essentially the same facts as the motion filed in Davis. The court finds that the current motion should be denied for reasons set forth in the order filed in Davis, which denied the request for discovery in that case. A copy of the order in Davis is attached to this order.
IT IS THEREFORE BY THIS COURT ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Disclosure of 404(b) Evidence (Doc. 16) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution (Doc. 17) is denied as moot.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant's Amended Motion for Discovery Regarding Selective Prosecution (Doc. 22) is denied.
Dated this _____ day of _______, at Topeka, Kansas.