Order Pursuant to Fed R. Crim. P. 5(f) — United States v. Edward McCorkle (District of Maryland, 9/15/2025)

Summary

Order Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) in United States v. Edward McCorkle, Criminal No. RDB-25-0270, District of Maryland, dated 9/15/2025. The Court orders the United States to adhere to the disclosure obligations set forth in Brady v. Maryland and its progeny. It states that failure to do so in a timely manner may result in serious consequences, including exclusion of evidence, adverse jury instructions, dismissal of charges, contempt proceedings, vacating a conviction, or disciplinary action against the prosecution. The order recites the Due Process Protections Act and states that counsel was given the oral admonition it requires. The signature block names Richard D. Bennett, United States Senior District 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 1:25-cr-00270-RDB Documentii_ Filed 09/15/25 Page1of1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. Criminal No. RDB-25-0270
EDWARD MCCORKLE

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.

Date: 9/15/2025 Richard D. Bennett
United States Senior District Judge


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mdd.590048.11.0.pdf

Size

241,062 bytes

SHA-256

cc41dd82d3ba87c223abb436b970d95ab2aa6c4e3619657ff4b9ec294763a02c

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mdd.590048.11.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.