Information - United States v. Maurice Fayne related docket

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia · No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL · Doc. 279 · 2022-07-05 · Docket on CourtListener

Summary

An order in United States v. Daniel Eric Jay, No. 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia, filed July 5, 2022 as Doc. 279, on the defendant's Motion for Production of Pre-Sentence Reports of Government Witnesses [Doc. 271]. Citing Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, it states that presentence reports may be discoverable after in camera review if they contain exculpatory or impeachment material. The Court reports reviewing the reports of co-defendants Maurice Fayne and Michael Sargent in camera and ordering disclosure of excerpts from Mr. Fayne's report with restrictions. It finds nothing further to disclose from Mr. Sargent's report and grants the motion in part. The three-page order carries the signature block of District Judge Mark H. Cohen.

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

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
V.
DANIEL ERIC JAY,
Defendant.
CRIMINAL ACTION FILE
NO. 1:20-CR-228-MHC-JKL-2
ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Production of
Pre-Sentence Reports of Government Witnesses [Doc. 271].
"Presentence reports are not public records but rather confidential reports to
the trial judge for use in his [or her] efforts to arrive at a fair sentence." United
States v. Martinello, 556 F.2d 1215, 1216 (5th Cir. 1977)1 (citation omitted).
Although the presumptive confidentiality ofpresentence reports ("PSRs") militates
against their disclosure, the Due Process Clause requires the disclosure of evidence
that is material to the impeachment of a prosecution witness. Giglio v. United
1 In Banner v. City ofPritchard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc),
the Eleventh Circuit adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions
handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 279     Filed 07/05/22     Page 1 of 3

States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972). Moreover, the Due Process Clause mandates the
disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83,
97 (1963). Consequently, it has been held that presentence reports may be
discoverable from the Government if, after conducting an in camera inspection, the
court concludes that a presentence report contains exculpatory or impeachment
material that should be disclosed to meet the ends of justice. See, e.g.. United
States v. Jackson, 978 F.2d 903, 909 (5th Cir. 1992) ("Because presentence reports
are necessarily confidential, the district court should examine the report in camera
and release any exculpatory or impeachment material to the defendant while
protecting the confidentiality of the rest of the report.").
In accordance with the Government's exparte request, the Court has
reviewed in camera the PSRs of co-Defendants Maurice Fayne ("Fayne") and
Michael Sargent ("Sargent"). The Government represents that it intends to call
only Fayne to testify at Defendant Daniel Eric Jay's trial. Gov'fs Resp. to Def.'s
Mot. for Production ofPSRs ofGov't Witnesses ("Gov'fs Resp.") [Doc. 273] at 6.
The Court has ordered the disclosure of excerpts from Fayne's PSR of material
2
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 279     Filed 07/05/22     Page 2 of 3

arguably subject to disclosure as Brady/Giglio or Jencks Act2 material to
Defendant Jay's counsel with appropriate restrictions.
With respect to Sargenfs PSR in this case,3 as the Government does not
intend to call Sargent as a witness in Jay's trial, there is no additional information
in Sargent's PSR that is required to be disclosed under Giglio. The Court has
reviewed Sargent's PSR for additional Brady material and finds none. The Court
notes that the summary of victim interviews is identical in both the Fayne and
Sargent PSRs.
Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Production ofPre-Sentence Reports
of Government Witnesses [Doc. 271] is GRANTED IN PART as provided in the
Court's Order granting the Government's exparte motion for in camera review.
IT IS SO ORDERED this ^>^-~ day of July, 2022.
MARK H. COHEN
United States District Judge
218U.S.C.§3500.
The Government represents it has never had access to Sargenfs PSR that relates
to a 2003 case in the Northern District of Texas. Gov't's Resp. at 6-7.
Case 1:20-cr-00228-MHC-JKL     Document 279     Filed 07/05/22     Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.gand.278523.279.0.pdf

Size

678,666 bytes

SHA-256

93dabe786104195dc6f6159f3992ca7bdbf01042876e2bc40f5eb2ab18d57dab

Our copy

gov.uscourts.gand.278523.279.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)