Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order — United States v. Arkino Williams (Eastern District of North Carolina, Document 49)

Order — United States v. Arkino Williams (Eastern District of North Carolina, Document 49)

Summary

An order in United States of America v. Arkino Williams, No. 5:23-CR-293-3D, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Western Division, filed September 26, 2023 as Document 49 in Case 5:23-cr-00293-D-BM. Under Rule 5(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Due Process Protections Act, the court confirms the government's disclosure obligation under Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. The order warns that failure to comply could result in consequences such as exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal or reversal of charges, contempt proceedings, or sanctions. It is dated the 26th day of September, 2023, and the signature block names Kimberly A. Swank, United States Magistrate Judge.

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

Cite this document

“Order — United States v. Arkino Williams (Eastern District of North Carolina, Document 49).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-no-5-23-cr-00293-dkt-49-e-d-n-c-f05aaed250/, SHA-256 76682bdd55f1f2670f409e40ac0d3f93faf4d61a6449bef9bb55cc237c2df94e.

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
No. 5:23-CR-293-3D

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Vv. ORDER

ARKINO WILLIAMS,

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 26th day of September, 2023.

KIMBERLY A. SWANK
United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:23-cr-00293-D-BM Document 49 Filed 09/26/23 Page 1of1

File and source

File
49.pdf
Size
144,792 bytes
SHA-256
76682bdd55f1f2670f409e40ac0d3f93faf4d61a6449bef9bb55cc237c2df94e
Our copy
49.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top