Court filing
Omnibus Reply by United States of America — United States v. Sutton et al. (Dkt. 297, S.D. W. Va.)
Filed June 30, 2025 in United States v. Sutton et al.; one of 133 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-06-30 |
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia · No. 2:24-cr-00192 · Doc. 297 · 2025-06-30 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. CRIMINAL NO. 2:24-CR-00192 KISHA SUTTON - 1 SHAMIESE WRIGHT – 2 GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS REPLY TO DEFENDANT KISHA SUTTON’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED DEFENSE EVIDENCE AND DEFENDANT SHAMIESE WRIGHTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED DEFENSE EVIDENCE Comes now the United States of America, by Jonathan T. Storage, Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia, and respectfully submits this omnibus reply to the defendants’ responses. ECF Nos. 275 and 282. I. DISCUSSION The government expects not to be blindsided by substantive defense evidence that should be disclosed under applicable rules. The government does not seek an order preventing the use of rebuttal or impeachment evidence. But to the extent that the defendants plan to introduce substantive evidence during their respective cases-in-chief that is in the form of documents or physical evidence not already revealed through discovery (including from the government), then the defendants should be Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 297 Filed 06/30/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID #: 1495 2 precluded from introducing such substantive evidence at trial. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(2)(C). The Second Superseding Indictment does not rely on any new disclosure of government evidence. The facts and circumstances underlying the current charges are the same as before. And even before, the defendants did not provide the government with any discovery. Both defendants state that the government’s motion should be denied because the government has not identified any particular document that has not been disclosed.1 But that’s the point. The government does not know what the defendants plan to rely on as substantive evidence in their respective cases-in-chief. Perhaps the answer is, “nothing” – which is fine. The Rules of Criminal Procedure, however, require reciprocal discovery when requested, as the government has done here. The Court should preclude the defendants’ use of any undisclosed, substantive evidence. 1 See ECF No. 274 at 1 (“The Motions In Limine filed by the Government in this case do not provide adequate context, do not point to any particular documents, and are otherwise general in nature.”); see also ECF No. 282 at 2 (“[T]he Government’s Motion in limine, seeking broadly, exclusion of any and all documentary evidence, while not identifying any particular document, not disclosed by the Defendant through reciprocal discovery is premature and should be denied.”). Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 297 Filed 06/30/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1496 3 II. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, the government requests that the Court grant it’s motion. ECF No. 271. Respectfully submitted, LISA G. JOHNSTON Acting United States Attorney By: s/Jonathan T. Storage JONATHAN T. STORAGE Assistant United States Attorney WV State Bar No. 12279 300 Virginia Street, East Room 4000 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: 304-345-2200 Fax: 304-347-5104 E-mail: Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 297 Filed 06/30/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1497 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE It is hereby certified that the foregoing “GOVERNMENT’S OMNIBUS REPLY TO DEFENDANT KISHA SUTTON’S RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED DEFENSE EVIDENCE AND DEFENDANT SHAMIESE WRIGHTS’ RESPONSE TO GOVERNMENT’S MOTION IN LIMINE TO EXCLUDE UNDISCLOSED DEFENSE EVIDENCE” has been electronically filed and service has been made on opposing counsel by virtue of electronic mail this the 30th day of June, 2025, to: Connor D. Robertson, Esq. 2702 Main Street Hurricane, WV 25526 Email: cdr@croblaw.com Michelle R. Fox, Esq. LAW OFFICES OF MICHELLE ROMAN FOX 3359 Teays Valley Road Hurricane, WV 25526 Email: michellefox@smithlawpllc.net s/Jonathan T. Storage JONATHAN T. STORAGE Assistant United States Attorney WV State Bar No. 12279 300 Virginia Street, East Room 4000 Charleston, WV 25301 Telephone: 304-345-2200 Fax: 304-347-5104 E-mail: Jonathan.Storage@usdoj.gov Case 2:24-cr-00192 Document 297 Filed 06/30/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1498
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.wvsd.240497.297.0.pdf
- Size
- 118,373 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6629d1303ab1736d745dca174ef3f22adddb1040ea2a9a33a5f9bac18acd9c8c
- Original
- PACER (login required)