Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Sary — U.S. District Court, District of Maryland ORDER pursuant to Fed R Crim P 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act as… — USA v. Ah…

Court filing

ORDER pursuant to Fed R Crim P 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act as… — USA v. Ahmed Sary - Ahmed M Sary (Dkt. 9)

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed2022-04-29

Cite this document

“ORDER pursuant to Fed R Crim P 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act as… — USA v. Ahmed Sary - Ahmed M Sary (Dkt. 9).” U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, No. 1:22-mj-01286-JMC, Doc. 9, filed 2022-04-29. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-ahmed-sary-mdd-511816/2022-04-29-gov-uscourts-mdd-511816-9-0-doc-9/, SHA-256 af27f3dfe9730ae7196d11437ab4f75d75de400f62d5eaf07ca496992680f283.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

; Y ;
Case 1:22-mj-01286-JMC Document9 Filed 04/29/22 Page+-dff2_.— ‘NTRP

GED RECEIVED ~

2:39 pm, Apr 29 2022
‘AT BALTIMORE .
' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND aed OF MARYLAND
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA *
v. * Criminal No. 1:22-mj-01286-JMC
AHMED SARY *

Defendant r
ORDER PURSUANT TO Fed R. Crim. P. 5(f)

As amended on October 21, 2020, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due
Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020) require that:

“Tn all criminal proceedings, on the first scheduled court date when both prosecutor and
defense counsel are present, the judge shall issue an oral and written order to prosecution and
defense counsel that confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland,

373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such an order under
applicable law.”

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the United States to adhere to the disclosure obligations
set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. Brady v. Maryland instructs
that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused” violates due
process where the evidence is “material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good
faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”. 373 U.S. at 87. Failure to adhere to this requirement in a
timely manner may result in serious consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of
evidence, on jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, vacating a
conviction, or disciplinary action against the prosecution.

Having given'counsel, the oral admonition required by the Due Process Protections Act, —
the United States is ordered to produce in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence to the ©
defendant pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. Not doing so may result in the
imposition of the sanctions referenced in this Order.

It is SO ORDERED. Wily yf

Date: April 29, 2022 J. Mdtk/Coulson
Unifed States Magistrate Judge

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mdd.511816.9.0.pdf
Size
107,258 bytes
SHA-256
af27f3dfe9730ae7196d11437ab4f75d75de400f62d5eaf07ca496992680f283
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mdd.511816.9.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top