Order Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — United States v. Tanya Pierre (Dkt. 33)
Summary
An Order Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in United States v. Tanya Pierre, No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS-3, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, dated February 26, 2026 and filed as Document 33. United States Magistrate Judge Jennifer C. Boal cites the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No. 116-182, and Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The order reminds the United States of its obligation to disclose in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence to the defendant, as required by Brady v. Maryland. It states that failure to comply may result in consequences, including reversal of any conviction, exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, disciplinary action, and/or sanctions.
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 Pursuant to Rule 5 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure — United States v. Tanya Pierre (Dkt. 33).”
Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/gov-uscourts-mad-295483-33-0-980f0a44b9/
, SHA-256 795198c3db25f3c5303531a241a5df12d2f6005bdff51d6fa779728c97b94bfa.Full text
Case 1:26-cr-10031-RGS Document 33 Filed 02/26/26 Page 1 of 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
No. 1:26-cr-10031-RGS-3
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
Tanya Pierre
ORDER PURSUANT TO
RULE 5 OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
February 26, 2026
Boal, U.S.M.J.
Pursuant to the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No. 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21,
2020) and Rule 5(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the United States is reminded of
its obligation to disclose in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence to the defendant, that is, all
evidence that is favorable to the defendant or tends to cast doubt on the United States’ case, as
required by Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. Failure to comply with this
order may result in consequences, including, but not limited to, the reversal of any conviction,
the exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings,
disciplinary action, and/or sanctions by the Court.
/ s / Jennifer C. Boal
JENNIFER C. BOAL
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Page 1 of 1
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.295483.33.0.pdf
- Size
- 119,621 bytes
- SHA-256
- 795198c3db25f3c5303531a241a5df12d2f6005bdff51d6fa779728c97b94bfa
- Our copy
- gov.uscourts.mad.295483.33.0.pdf
- Original
- No public link identified.