Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Torjagbo United States v. Carl Delano Torjagbo — N.D. Ga., No. 1:22-cr-171-MLB Motion for Production of Brady Materials by Carl Delano Torjagbo — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 80, N.D. Ga. No. 1:22-cr-00171)

Court filing

Motion for Production of Brady Materials by Carl Delano Torjagbo — USA v. Torjagbo (Dkt. 80, N.D. Ga. No. 1:22-cr-00171)

Filed February 12, 2024 in USA v. Torjagbo; one of 189 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Filed2024-02-12

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC · Doc. 80 · 2024-02-12 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 1 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 
ATLANTA DIVISION 
 
 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
 
v. 
 
 
 
 
 
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1:22-CR-171-MLB-RDC 
CARL DELANO TORGAGBO 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Motion for an Order Enforcing Brady v. Maryland  
and the Due Process Protections Act 
 
COMES NOW the Defendant, CARL DELANO TORJAGBO, by 
and through undersigned counsel, and files this motion for an order 
enforcing Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), and the Due Process 
Protections Act.  We are interested primarily in protecting Mr. Torjagbo’s 
rights under Brady and its progeny.  We are also interested in making sure 
that Mr. Torjagbo will receive any Brady evidence (which includes Giglio 
and sentencing mitigation evidence) in time to make effective use of it prior 
to trial.  To aid the Government in complying with its Brady obligations, it 
may be helpful for undersigned counsel to identify certain information that 
may fall into that class.  Clarification of Brady issues would also aid Mr. 
Torjagbo in knowing what to expect and when to expect the information.  
  
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 1 of 6

 
Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 2 
AUTHORITY 
Brady v. Maryland held that 
[T]he 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. 
Brady, 373 U.S. at 87.  Many cases since then have interpreted a prosecutor’s 
Brady obligations.  Today, Brady and its progeny impose on the prosecution 
a “duty to learn of”1 and disclose to the defense all “favorable,”2 
information “known to the others acting on the government’s behalf in the 
case, including the police,”3 a group commonly referred to as “the 
prosecution team.”4  The prosecution must disclose this information at such 
a time and in such a manner as to allow the defense to use the favorable 
material effectively”5 – which, as a practical matter, means well before trial, 
 
1 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). 
2 Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 
3 Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995). 
4 See the Department of Justice Deputy Attorney General David Ogden 
Memorandum of January 4, 2010, Step 1A, which may be found at 
https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/memorandum-selected-united-
state-attorneys-investigations-and-prosecutions-states (last visited March 6, 
2023). 
5 See United States v. Bueno-Sierra, 99 F.3d 375 (11th Cir. 1996) (late 
disclosure caused one day delay in trial).  We do not wish to delay the trial. 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 2 of 6

 
Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 3 
if not at the outset of the case, because the due process obligation under 
Brady to disclose exculpatory information is for the purpose of allowing 
defense counsel an opportunity to investigate the facts of the case and, with 
the help of the defendant, to craft an appropriate defense. 
 
Although the Brady case itself speaks in terms of materiality, we ask 
the Court to recognize that materiality applies in the context of post-
conviction review, but for pretrial disclosures the appropriate inquiry is 
whether the evidence at issue may be favorable to the accused.6  
Although the United States criminal legal system is based on the 
adversarial approach to justice, Brady represents a bit of a departure from 
that approach at least enough to “ensure that a miscarriage of justice does 
not occur.”  See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 675 n. 6 (1985) : 
By requiring the prosecutor to assist the defense in making its case, the 
Brady rule represents a limited departure from a pure adversary model. 
The Court has recognized, however, that the prosecutor's role 
transcends that of an adversary: he "is the representative not of an 
 
6 For example, in United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12, 16 (D.D.C. 2005), 
the Court held that “the only question before (and even during) trial is whether 
the evidence at issue may be ‘favorable to the accused’; if so, it must be 
disclosed without regard to whether the failure to disclose it likely would 
affect the outcome of the upcoming trial. See also United States v. Carter, 313 
F. Supp. 2d 921 (E.D. Wisc. 2004) (rejecting pretrial materiality analysis); 
United States v. Sudikoff, 36 F. Supp. 2d 1196 (C.D. Cal. 1999) (same). 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 3 of 6

 
Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 4 
ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty ... whose interest 
... in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that 
justice shall be done." Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88, 55 
S.Ct. 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). See Brady v. Maryland, 373 
U.S., at 87-88, 83 S.Ct., at 1196-1197. 
Specific Requests 
1. Mr. Torjagbo requests any and all information that might tend to 
negate an element of any of the charged offenses or that bears upon 
the mental or psychological state of Mr. Torjagbo at the time of the 
alleged offenses. 
2. Mr. Torjagbo specifically requests any and all information that the 
Government may possess which is contrary to any averment 
contained in the indictment.   
3. Mr. Torjagbo specifically requests any information the Government 
may possess regarding the operations or business activity of Kremkov 
Industries. 
4. Mr. Torjagbo also specifically requests any information that the 
Government may possess regarding whether persons listed on the 
Kremkov payroll logs that were submitted to J.P. Morgan Chase 
Bank are real persons, whether they reside principally in the United 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 4 of 6

 
Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 5 
States, and whether they have had any association with Mr. Torjagbo 
or Kremkov Industries.  
5. Mr. Torjagbo requests that the Government identify the agents and 
agencies the prosecution considers to be a part of its “prosecution 
team” and whether the Government has made a request for 
information favorable to the defense to all such persons and agencies. 
6. Mr. Torjagbo requests a disclosure deadline of 30 days from today. 
7. We ask that the Court specifically request that the Government affirm 
whether or not it has so far disclosed all Brady evidence of which it 
has knowledge. 
8. We finally ask that if the Government has information that may be 
favorable to the defense, but decides that it need not disclose the 
information that the defense be notified so that we can have the 
opportunity to request an in camera review of the information at issue. 
WHEREFORE, Mr. Torjagbo requests that this motion be granted. 
 
 
 
 
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 5 of 6

 
Federal Defender Program, Inc., 1500 Centennial Tower, 101 Marietta Street, NW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303, 404-688-7530 
Page 6 
Respectfully submitted, this 12th day of February, 2024. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
s/ Kendal D. Silas______________                                
 
 
 
 
 
 
Kendal D. Silas  
Georgia State Bar Number 645959 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Attorney for Carl Torjagbo 
 
FEDERAL DEFENDER PROGRAM, INC. 
1500 CENTENNIAL TOWER 
101 MARIETTA STREET, NW 
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 
404-688-7530  
 
Case 1:22-cr-00171-MLB-RDC     Document 80     Filed 02/12/24     Page 6 of 6

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.gand.303267.80.0.pdf
Size
203,059 bytes
SHA-256
127131fea251cc3b0ccd8a7a5749a9ec01f750f722b9faaf996edd4563047e74
Our copy
gov.uscourts.gand.303267.80.0.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top