Brady Disclosure Order — United States v. Baines (Document 43)

Summary

Brady Disclosure Order in United States v. Fontrell Antonio Baines, Case No. CR 20-522 MWF, filed April 15, 2021 as Document 43 and signed by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald. Under Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and Brady v. Maryland, the Court orders the government to produce in a timely manner all information or evidence favorable to the defendant, resolving any doubt in favor of full disclosure. The government may apply to modify the Order if disclosure would compromise witness safety, victim rights, national security or another substantial interest. The Order lists consequences for violations, including contempt, sanction, adverse jury instruction, exclusion of evidence and dismissal of charges.

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

 Case 2:20-cr-00522-MWF Document 43 Filed 04/15/21 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:257



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9                         CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                    Case No. CR 20-522 MWF
12                      Plaintiff,                BRADY DISCLOSURE ORDER
13         v.
14   FONTRELL ANTONIO BAINES,
15                      Defendant.
16
17
18         Under federal law, including Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
19   Procedure, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and all applicable decisions from
20   the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit interpreting Brady, the government has a
21   continuing obligation to produce all information or evidence known to the
22   government relating to guilt or punishment that might reasonably be considered
23   favorable to the defendant’s case, even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it
24   is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence. See United States v. Price, 566
25   F.3d 900, 913 n.14 (9th Cir. 2009). Accordingly, the Court orders the government to
26   produce to the Defendant(s) in a timely manner all such information or evidence.
27         Information or evidence may be favorable to a defendant’s case if it either may
28   help bolster the defendant’s case or impeach a prosecutor’s witness or other


                                            -1-
 Case 2:20-cr-00522-MWF Document 43 Filed 04/15/21 Page 2 of 2 Page ID #:258



1    government evidence. If doubt exists, it should be resolved in favor of the
2    Defendant(s) with full disclosure being made.
3          If the government believes that a required disclosure would compromise
4    witness safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique,
5    or any other substantial government interest, the government may apply to the Court
6    for a modification of the requirements of this Disclosure Order, which may include in
7    camera review and/or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the
8    information.
9          This Disclosure Order is entered under Rule 5(f) and does not relieve any party
10   in this matter of any other discovery obligation. The consequences for violating either
11   this Disclosure Order or the government’s obligations under Brady include, but are
12   not limited to, the following: contempt, sanction, referral to disciplinary authority,
13   adverse jury instruction, exclusion of evidence, and dismissal of charges. Nothing in
14   this Disclosure Order enlarges or diminishes the government’s obligation to disclose
15   information and evidence to a defendant under Brady, as interpreted and applied under
16   Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit precedent. As the Supreme Court noted, “the
17   government violates the Constitution’s Due Process Clause ‘if it withholds evidence
18   that is favorable to the defense and material to the defendant’s guilt or punishment.’”
19   Turner v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1885, 1888 (2017), quoting Smith v. Cain, 565
20   U.S. 73, 75 (2012).
21         IT IS SO ORDERED.
22
23   Dated: April 15, 2021                   _____________________________________
                                             MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
24
                                             United States District Judge
25
26
27
28


                                            -2-


File and source

File

43.pdf

Size

148,227 bytes

SHA-256

3428e2855193f459ecc2e392d0f675a6d2a6105797373f61ad7f6847ba83295d

Our copy

43.pdf

Original

No public link identified.