ORDER pursuant to Fed R Crim P 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act as to Ayaz Qureshi — USA v. Qureshi (Dkt. 5)

Summary

Judge Richard D. Bennett issues an Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5(f) in United States v. Ayaz Qureshi, Criminal No. RDB-22-0330, in the District of Maryland, filed 10/14/22 and dated October 14, 2022. Quoting the Due Process Protections Act, it orders the United States to adhere to its disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland and to produce all exculpatory evidence in a timely manner. The order warns that failure may result in exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, vacating a conviction or disciplinary action against the prosecution. It also records that counsel received the required oral admonition.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

y= Case 1:22-cr-00330-JKB Document Filed 10/14/22 Page 1of1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
¥i Criminal No. RDB-22-0330
AYAZ QURESHI

Defendant.

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:

“In 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, adverse 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.

LMP Bat

Date: October 14, 2022 Richard D. Bennett
United States District Judge

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.5.0.pdf

Size

351,763 bytes

SHA-256

d629b7853bf8b3937d93cf5b5c698af31a85292727b886d30f030088b01387d8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.519685.5.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)