Order Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 5 (f) — United States v. Ryan Dales (District of Maryland)

Summary

An Order Pursuant to Fed R. Crim. P. 5(f), filed January 23, 2023, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland in United States v. Ryan Dales, Criminal No. 23-mj-0190-BAH. The order quotes Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, and orders the United States to adhere to the disclosure obligations set forth in Brady v. Maryland. It states that failure to adhere in a timely manner may result in consequences including exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, vacating a conviction or disciplinary action. It is dated January 23, 2023 over the name of A. David Copperthite, 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

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

Case 1:23-mj-00190-MBAH Document1i3_ Filed 01/23/23 Page1of1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v. Criminal No. 23-mj-0190-BAH &
RYAN DALES GLR-17-0060
Defendant.

ORDER PURSUANT TO Fed R. Crim, P. 5(f)

As amended on October 21, 2020, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due
Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020) require that:

“In all criminal proceedings, on the first scheduled court date when both prosecutor and
defense counsel are present, the judge shall issue an oral and written order to prosecution and
defense counsel that confirms the disclosure obligation of the prosecutor under Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny, and the possible consequences of violating such an order under
applicable law.”

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the United States to adhere to the disclosure obligations
set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny. Brady v. Maryland instructs
that “the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused” 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.” 373 U.S. at 87. Failure to adhere to this requirement in a
timely manner may result in serious consequences, including, but not limited to, exclusion of
evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, vacating a
conviction, or disciplinary action against the prosecution.

Having given counsel the oral admonition required by the Due Process Protections Act,
the United States is ordered to produce in a timely manner all exculpatory evidence to the
defendant pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. Not doing so may result in the
imposition of the sanctions referenced in this Order.

It is SO ORDERED.

A. David Copperthite
United States Magistrate Judge

Date: January 23, 2023


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.528313.13.0.pdf

Size

375,532 bytes

SHA-256

c6ef67717cc968601d9e654df286445df540045867fb63ca6e96f4efc8156e97

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.528313.13.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.