Court filing
MOTION to exclude Testimony by Daisha Sanders.… — USA v. Sanders et al (Dkt. 280)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2025-05-18 |
U.S. District Court records for the Western District of Missouri and Western District of Washington · No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP · Doc. 280 · 2025-05-18 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
Defendant's Motion to Exclude Testimony, filed May 18, 2025 as Document 280 in United States v. Daisha Sanders, No. 4:24-cr-00029-BP, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Through counsel Katrina Y. Robertson, the defendant asks the court to exclude at the sentencing hearing any argument, testimony or evidence concerning PPP loans and associated loss amount not previously disclosed through discovery. The motion states that the defendant pleaded guilty on November 21, 2024, that the Presentence Investigation Report filed March 4, 2025 increased the loss amount, and that the government provided spreadsheets on PPP loans on May 15, 2025 and May 16, 2025 without underlying discovery. It relies on Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and the Due Process Protections Act. The five-page motion includes a certificate of service.
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
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
Case No. 24-CR-00029-BP
)
DAISHA SANDERS,
)
)
Defendant.
)
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE TESTIMONY
Defendant, DAISHA SANDERS (Sanders), by and through undersigned
counsel, moves this Court to issue its Order excluding, at the Sentencing Hearing,
any reference, direct or in-direct, argument, testimony and/or evidence concerning
PPP loans and associated loss amount not previously disclosed through discovery.
BACKGROUND
On November 21, 2024, Daisha Sanders entered a plea of guilty pursuant to a
plea agreement.
On January 17, 2025, the United States Probation Office prepared a
preliminary presentence investigation report. Counsel for Daisha Sanders
requested a two-week extension to the initial deadline. On January 30, 2025,
counsel filed a Motion for an Extension of Time. (Doc. 214). This Court granted the
request. (Doc 215) which extended the deadline to February 14, 2025.
Prior to that deadline, the Government provided supplemental discovery.
Defense counsel requested another extension of time in which to file objections. (See
Doc. 222). This Court granted a second extension. (See Doc. 223).
On March 4, 2025, the United States Probation Office filed the Presentence
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 280 Filed 05/18/25 Page 1 of 5
2
Investigation Report which included changes to Paragraph 10, 23, 25, 30, 35, 39, 72,
73, and 82.which increased the loss amount and ultimately Daisha Sanders’s guideline
range. These adjustments were based on late disclosure of discovery by the Government.
On May 15, 2025, the Government provided a spreadsheet concerning new
information concerning PPP loans for which no discovery has been provided. On May
16, 2025, the Government provided a revised spreadsheet concerning PPP loans and
resulting loss amount for which no discovery has been provided. The defense has
nothing more than the spreadsheet which the Government seeks to admit along with
potentially other evidence and witnesses.
AUTHORITY
In federal criminal cases, discovery is generally governed by Fed. R. Crim. P.
16 which is broader than Brady, “requiring disclosure of all documents ‘material to
preparing the defense.” United States v. Muniz-Jazquez, 718 F.3d 1180, 1883 (9th
Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E)(i)). Rule 16(a)(1)(E) provides for the
production of discovery, upon a defendant’s request. It directs:
[T]he government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or
photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible
objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items,
if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control
and:
(i) the item is material to preparing the defense;
(ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or
(iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.
Brady imposes obligations upon the government, separate and apart from
Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Generally, Brady dictates that
the prosecution must disclose any information or material that is: (a) material, (b)
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 280 Filed 05/18/25 Page 2 of 5
3
relevant to guilt or punishment, (c) favorable to the accused and (d) within the
actual or constructive knowledge or possession of anyone acting on behalf of the
State. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Moreover, the Due Process Clause of
the Constitution requires that the Government disclose any evidence that “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.
Under Brady, a prosecutor’s disclosure obligations begin when the case is
brought and continue throughout the pretrial and trial phases of the case, and even
post-trial. See Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 60 (1987); Steidl v. Fermon, 494
F.3d 623, 630 (7th Cir. 2007). "The government has an obligation to disclose
evidence that is favorable to the accused and material to either guilt or punishment,
and this duty extends to impeachment evidence." United States v. Barraza Cazares,
465 F.3d 327, 333 (8th Cir.2006) (citing United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 676,
105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985)). All such information must be disclosed
promptly after it comes to the government’s attention. And the prosecutor must
disclose all favorable information regardless of whether he or she thinks it is
“material” or would change the outcome of the proceedings. See United States v.
Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005).
The Due Process Protections Act requires the Government to disclose
information that is favorable to the defense and that relates to guilt or punishment.
Rule 5(f) provides: 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
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 280 Filed 05/18/25 Page 3 of 5
4
obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its
progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such order under applicable law.
ARGUMENT
The information which the Government seeks to introduce impacts the loss
amount and/or restitution concerning Daisha Sanders. This new information
concerns PPP loans which were allegedly secured sometime in 2021. The
Government has been in possession of this information for a considerable period of
time.
The spreadsheets are not a substitute for discovery. The sparse information
does not provide defense counsel with sufficient information about the nature of the
alleged transactions. On February 14, 2025, counsel for Daisha Sanders requested
the Government to provide the Bates stamp pages for a previous supplement to
discovery so that counsel could, if possible, reference any material to the initial
discovery. 1 The Government did not provide a response.
In this case, there may be other co-defendants who share responsibility for
these alleged loans as well as the restitution owed. In view of the nature of this
case, there is even more of a need to comply with the rule and spirit of the Due
Process Protections Act, Brady and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The
Government has deprived Ms. Sanders of material information concerning her
objections, alleged loss amount, and restitution. More importantly, she has been
deprived of the disclosures in a timely manner.
Allowing the Government to determine when and if they will turn over the
full extent of reports and other documents which form the basis of her actual or
1 On February 7, 2025, the Government produced supplemental discovery following the preliminary
presentence investigation report.
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 280 Filed 05/18/25 Page 4 of 5
5
intended loss amount, restitution and ultimately her guideline range is prejudicial
and unfair. Ms. Sanders’s defense has been prejudiced and significantly impaired by
this unreasonable delay.
WHEREFORE, in view of the untimeliness of these disclosures, Ms. Sanders
respectfully request that this Court exclude such evidence at his supervised
revocation proceeding.
Respectfully submitted,
KATRINA Y. ROBERTSON, LLC
/s/Katrina Y. Robertson
Katrina Y. Robertson, MBN 61289
The Cable Building
1321 Burlington Street, Ste 600
North Kansas City, Missouri 64116
Office: (816) 885-4974
Facsimile: (816) 817-4964
kyr@kyrobertsonlaw.com
Attorney for Daisha Sanders
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned hereby certifies that a copy of the foregoing was delivered
on May 18, 2025, to the CM-ECF system of the United States District Court for the
Western District of Missouri for electronic delivery to all counsel of record.
/s/ Katrina Y. Robertson
Katrina Y. Robertson MBN 61289
Case 4:24-cr-00029-BP Document 280 Filed 05/18/25 Page 5 of 5File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mowd.174450.280.0.pdf
- Size
- 204,776 bytes
- SHA-256
- b025967f58877663edf15d6a76fbcf36e16ae0bf540159b98f4bca394ee539a9
- Original
- PACER (login required)