Due Process Protections Act Order signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. — USA v. Ashcraft (Dkt. 7, E.D. Cal.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California · No. 2:22-cr-00087-KJM · Doc. 7 · 2022-05-09 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
USA ,
Plaintiff,
v.
AARON ASHCRAFT ,
Defendant.
/
NO.  2:22−CR−00087−KJM
DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS
ACT ORDER
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
          Under federal law, including Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady
18
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and all applicable decisions from the Supreme Court and the Ninth
19
Circuit interpreting Brady, the government has a continuing obligation to produce all information or
20
evidence known to the government relating to guilt or punishment that might reasonably be considered
21
favorable to the defendant's case, even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it is reasonably
22
likely to lead to admissible evidence.  See United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900,913 n.14
23
(9th Cir. 2009).  Accordingly, the court orders the government to produce to the defendant in a
24
timely manner all such information or evidence.
25
/////
26
/////
1
Case 2:22-cr-00087-KJM     Document 7     Filed 05/09/22     Page 1 of 2

1
          Information or evidence may be favorable to a defendant's case if it either may help bolster
2
the defendant's case or impeach a prosecutor's witness or other government evidence.  If doubt
3
exists, it should be resolved in favor of the defendant with full disclosure being made.
4
          If the government believes that a required disclosure would compromise witness safety,
5
victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other substantial
6
government interest, the government may apply to the Court for a modification of the requirements
7
of this Disclosure Order, which may include in camera review and/or withholding or subjecting to
8
a protective order all or part of the information.
9
          This Disclosure Order is entered under Rule 5(f) and does not relieve any party in this matter
10
of any other discovery obligation.  The consequences for violating either this Disclosure Order or
11
the government's obligations under Brady include, but are not limited to, the following:  contempt,
12
sanction, referral to a disciplinary authority, adverse jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, and
13
dismissal of charges. Nothing in this Disclosure Order enlarges or diminishes the government's
14
obligation to disclose information and evidence to a defendant under Brady, as interpreted and
15
applied under Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent.  As the Supreme Court noted,
16
"the government violates the Constitution's Due Process Clause 'if it withholds evidence that is
17
favorable to the defense and material to the defendant's guilt or punishment.'"  Turner v. United
18
States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2017), quoting Smith v. Cain, 565 U.S. 73, 75 (2012).
19
DATE:
   May 9, 2022
20
/s/  Kimberly J. Mueller
U.S. CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
24
25
26
2
Case 2:22-cr-00087-KJM     Document 7     Filed 05/09/22     Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.caed.410248.7.0.pdf

Size

21,598 bytes

SHA-256

4bfbdc934476acb4467fe11629a428db78ce71c009526d8010b4ca161fa56d2b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.caed.410248.7.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)