Court filing

Information - United States v. Tracy and Carolyn Wade

Record facts

Court	U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
Filed	2024-09-04

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida · No. 0:23-cr-60173-KMW · Doc. 147 · 2024-09-04 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

CASE NO. 23-60173-CR-KMW(s) (GRAHAM)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs.

CAROLYN DENISE WADE and
TRACY D. WADE,

Defendants.
/

UNITED STATES’ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SPECIFIC KYLES AND BRADY INFORMATION [DE 132]

Introduction

The United States of America, by and through its undersigned counsel, hereby responds in
opposition to the “Motion for Specific Kyles and Brady Information,” which Defendants Carolyn
Denise Wade and Tracy D. Wade (“Defendants”) filed on August 21, 2024, at docket entry (“DE”)
132 (the “Motion” or “Mot.”).1 In sum, the Motion seeks an order “requiring the government to
disclose and provide specific information and materials known, or should be known to the
government.” (Mot. at 1). Defendants assert that the information sought “is favorable to the
defendants on the issue of their innocence and/or includes impeachment information and other
material and evidence tending to discredit the government’s cooperating witness Haydee
Granados,” (Mot. at 1-2), and includes 8 specific requests for information listed in paragraphs “A”
through (“H”) (Mot. at 3-4).

1 Counsel for Defendant did not confer with the government prior to filing the Motion, as required by Local
Rule 88.9. On August 21, 2024, the Court entered a Paperless Order Referring Motions (DE 136), pursuant
to which the Court referred this Motion (DE 132) to U.S. Magistrate Judge Patrick M. Hunt for a report and
recommendation.
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024 Page 1 of 5

As explained herein, the Motion should be denied as moot to the extent it requests
information that is already covered by one or more of the following: (1) the Order pursuant to the
Due Process Protections Act, entered in this case on July 15, 2024 as to Defendants Carolyn Wade
(DE 99) and Tracy Wade (DE 100); (2) the Paperless Standing Discovery Order, entered in this
case on July 15, 2024, as to Defendants Carolyn wade (DE 99) and Tracy Wade (DE 100); and (3)
the government’s discovery obligations mandated by Local Rule 88.10, Rule 16(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady, Giglio, Napue, and/or the government’s obligation to assure
a fair trial. Furthermore, government is aware of its continuing duty to disclose newly discovered
additional information required by the Standing Discovery Order, Rule 16(c) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure, Brady, Giglio, Napue, and the obligation to assure a fair trial.
To the extent that the Motion requests information outside the scope of the government’s
discovery obligations, the government opposes the Motion asks the Court to deny it.
Procedural and Factual Background
The government incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the procedural
and factual background in its responses in opposition to Defendant Carolyn Wade’s motions to
dismiss, which the government filed on September 4, 2024, at DE 145 and 146.
Government’s Response to the Standing Discovery Order
On July 15, 2024, Defendants were arraigned on the Superseding Indictment and the Court
entered the Paperless Standing Discovery Order in relation thereto (“SDO”) as to each Defendant
(DE 99 as to Carolyn Wade and DE 100 as to Tracy Wade). In addition, the Court entered the
following Order pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act as to each Defendant:
the Court confirms the United States obligation to disclose to the defendant all
exculpatory evidence- that is, evidence that favors the defendant or casts doubt on
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024 Page 2 of 5

the United States case, as required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and
its progeny, and ORDERS the United States to do so. The government has a duty
to disclose any evidence that goes to negating the defendants guilt, the credibility
of a witness, or that would reduce a potential sentence. The defendant is entitled to
this information without a request. Failure to disclose exculpatory evidence in a
timely manner may result in consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion
of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings,
disciplinary action, or sanctions by the Court.

DEs 99, 100.
On July 25, 2024, the government filed its response to the SDO as to Defendants Carolyn
Wade (DE 118) and Tracy Wade (DE 119). It each response, the government stated, among other
things:
C.

The government will disclose any information or material which may be
favorable on the issues of guilt or punishment within the scope of Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97
(1976).

The government will disclose any payments, promises of immunity,
leniency, preferential treatment, or other inducements made to prospective
government witnesses, within the scope of Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S.
150 (1972), or Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264 (1959).

The government will disclose any prior convictions of any alleged co-
conspirator, accomplice or informant who will testify for the government at
trial.

The government is aware of its continuing duty to disclose such newly discovered
additional information required by the Standing Discovery Order, Rule 16(c) of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Brady, Giglio, Napue, and the obligation to
assure a fair trial.

DEs 118, 119.

Contemporaneous with its responses to the SDO, on July 25, 2024, the United States
produced discovery to each Defendant through their joint counsel of record. The United States
noted in its responses to the SDO, and in the cover letter for that discovery production, that the
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024 Page 3 of 5

discovery included both new discovery (Bates stamped 23-60173-CR_006000 through 23-60173-
CR_009061 and additional non-Bates stamped records in other formats) and all prior discovery in
this case, which consisted of PDF records Bates stamped 23-60173-CR_000001 through 23-
60173-CR_003755 and additional non-Bates stamped files. The prior discovery included the
Third-Party PPP Applications previously produced to Carolyn Wade on May 1, 2024, which is
discussed extensively in the government’s response (DE 146) in opposition to her motion to
dismiss the Superseding Indictment.
Discussion of Applicable Law and Argument
The government’s discovery obligations are mandated by, among other things, (1) the Due
Process Protections Act; (2) the SDO; (3) Local Rule 88.10; (4) Rule 16(a) of the Federal Rules
of Criminal Procedure; Brady, Giglio, Napue, and/or the government’s obligation to assure a fair
trial. However, “the Brady rule is not an evidentiary rule that grants broad discovery powers to a
defendant.” United States v. Ouinn, 123 F.3d 1415, 1421 (11th Cir. 1997). Rather, Brady
compels the government to disclose “evidence which is advantageous to the defendant, and which,
if suppressed, would deprive him or her of a fair trial.” United States v. Beale, 921 F.2d 1412,
1426 (11th Cir. 1991).
The government is aware of its discovery obligations, including under Brady and cases
decided under the due process principles set forth in that case. To the extent that the information
requested by Defendants in the Motion is covered by these obligations, the order sought in the
Motion is unnecessary and should be denied as moot. To the extent that the information sought
in the Motion is not covered by the government’s discovery obligations, then the Motion is
necessarily seeking information that is outside of the government’s discovery obligations, and
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024 Page 4 of 5

should be denied. For example, Brady and Giglio do not require the government to conduct
independent investigations to obtain information, of which it has no knowledge or which is not in
its possession, that may be favorable to Defendants.
In sum, there is no basis, and no need, for the Court to grant the order Defendants are
seeking in the Motion. Any such order is either covered by the government’s existing discovery
obligations, or would impose upon the government an unwarranted additional obligation.
Accordingly, the United States respectfully asks the Court to deny the Motion (DE 132).
Respectfully submitted,

MARKENZY LAPOINTE

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

By: /s/ David A. Snider

David A. Snider
Assistant United States Attorney
Court ID No. A5502260
500 E. Broward Blvd
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33394
Tel: (954) 660-5696
Fax: (954) 356-7336
Email: david.snider@usdoj.gov
Case 0:23-cr-60173-KMW Document 147 Entered on FLSD Docket 09/04/2024 Page 5 of 5

File and source

File: gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.147.0.pdf
Size: 147,010 bytes
SHA-256: 4356763fb4499e98046070b18e765d0605a35843f415470181b886aeaa613adf
Our copy: gov.uscourts.flsd.654266.147.0.pdf
Original: PACER (login required)