The opinion of the court was delivered by: MCAVOY
Count One of the superseding indictment charges defendant Andres Reyes with violating 21 U.S.C. §§ 841 and 846 by conspiring to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute crack cocaine. The alleged drug conspiracy existed from June, 1995, until October, 1995, in and around Troy and Albany, New York. Counts Two and Three of the indictment charge defendant with violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 by knowingly and intentionally distributing crack cocaine, with another person, in Albany, New York, on August 29, 1995, and September 14, 1995, respectively. Counts Four, Five, and Six of the indictment charge defendant with violating 21 U.S.C. § 841 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 by knowingly and intentionally possessing crack cocaine, with another person, with intent to distribute on August 29, 1995, September 14, 1995, and October 2, 1995, respectively.
On October 5, 1995, defendant was brought before U.S. Magistrate Judge Ralph W. Smith, Jr., and arraigned. Defendant was denied bail and has been detained since that date. The following constitutes the Court's adjudication of defendant's omnibus pretrial motions.
A. DISCOVERY AND INSPECTION
Defendant moves for discovery and inspection of a variety of material putatively in the government's possession. The government maintains that it has met all of its Rule 16 discovery obligations and argues that the Court should deny defendant's requests that exceed the requirements of that Rule.
1. Miscellaneous Evidence
Defendant requests that the Court order the government to comply with prior discovery requests, without providing persuasive reasons for why the government should be ordered to do so. The government assures the Court that defendants have been or will be afforded the opportunity to inspect all of the physical and documentary evidence that the government will seek to introduce at trial.
Otherwise, the Court declines to order production of every item enumerated in defendant's omnibus motion, but does so in light of the sufficiency, in general, of the government's good faith representation that it understands and will comply with its obligations. See United States v. Taylor, 707 F. Supp. 696 (S.D.N.Y. 1989). The Court also reminds the government that it misapprehends its obligations at its peril and directs the government to err, if at all, in favor of defendant.
2. Brady Exculpatory Material
The government denies knowledge of any Brady exculpatory material at this time but assures the Court that it will be provided to defendant as it becomes known. The Court is satisfied with the government's apparent good faith, but once again encourages the government to err in favor of defendant when deciding whether to reveal future evidence that may be exculpatory.
3. Government Witness ...