Order — No. 4:25-cr-00031 (Dkt. 12, E.D.N.C.)

Summary

An order in United States v. Yolanda Baker, No. 4:25-CR-31, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, Eastern Division, filed July 28, 2025 as Document 12 (1 page), with the signature block of Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Swank. Entered under Rule 5(f)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as amended by the Due Process Protections Act, it confirms the government's disclosure obligation under Brady v. Maryland. It states 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.

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
                                   EASTERN DIVISION
                                     No. 4:25-CR-31
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,                        )
                                                  )
                  v.                              )                      ORDER
                                                  )
        YOLANDA BAKER,                            )
                                                  )
                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 28WK day oIJuly 2025.



                                              _________________________
                                              KIMBERLY A. SWANK
                                              United States Magistrate Judge




      Case 4:25-cr-00031-UA-BM             Document 12       Filed 07/28/25      Page 1 of 1


File and source

File

12.pdf

Size

143,884 bytes

SHA-256

cb2241ae0c655aa361ffb7002bcd73743ec7f7297e5367aceecfeceb4923442e

Our copy

12.pdf

Original

No public link identified.