Order — United States v. Lamont Riddick (Eastern District of North Carolina, Document 15)

Summary

This is an order in the Eastern District of North Carolina, Northern Division, No. 2:26-CR-16-1, United States of America against Lamont Riddick. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f)(1), as amended by the Due Process Protections Act, the court confirms the government's disclosure obligation under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. It states that failure by the government to comply could result in exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal or reversal of charges, contempt proceedings, or imposition of sanctions. The signature block names Kimberly A. Swank, United States Magistrate Judge, and the header shows filing on 09/23/26.

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 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
                            NORTHERN DIVISION
                              No. 2:26-CR-16-1

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        )
                                                  )
                  v.                              )                      ORDER
                                                  )
        LAMONT RIDDICK,                           )
                                                  )
                Defendant.                        )



       Pursuant to Rule 5(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the

Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No. 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020), the court hereby

confirms the government’s disclosure obligation under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963),

and its progeny. See Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 (“[T]he suppression by the prosecution of evidence

favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to

guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”). Failure by

the government to comply with its disclosure obligation could result in such consequences as

exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal or reversal of charges, contempt

proceedings, or imposition of sanctions.

       SO ORDERED, this 23rd day oISeptember, 2026.



                                              _________________________
                                              KIMBERLY A. SWANK
                                              United States Magistrate Judge




      Case 2:26-cr-00016-UA-RJ             Document 15      Filed 09/23/26      Page 1 of 1


File and source

File

15.pdf

Size

123,523 bytes

SHA-256

4705b079c994ce472b6a5784f32a825f34719aec5a792b040bfa80d2d0c6cd5a

Our copy

15.pdf

Original

No public link identified.