The opinion of the court was delivered by: Shirley Kram, Senior District Judge
The New York Police Department (the "NYPD") and the Bronx County District Attorney's Office (the "Office") move to quash subpoenas recently served by defendant Frank Ceballo in the above referenced case.
On June 18, 2003, counsel for Ceballo served a subpoena on the NYPD requesting police reports, memos, precinct blotter entries, 911 recordings and "Sprint Reports" concerning the arrest of the defendant and the voided arrest of a woman named Denise Simmons on January 25, 2003. The NYPD moves to quash this subpoena, alleging that it is an attempt by the Defendant to circumvent Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and that the subpoena does not satisfy the standards of Rule 17, which requires that the materials sought be relevant, admissible and specifically identified.
Rule 17(c) is not to be used as method of discovery in criminal cases. See United States v. Cherry, 876 F. Supp. 547, 552 (S.D.N.Y. 1995). "Courts must be careful that rule 17(c) is not [ Page 2]
turned into a broad discovery device, thereby undercutting the strict limitation of discovery in criminal cases found in Fed.R.Crim.P. 16." Id. Instead, Rule 16(a)(1) provides for disclosure of evidence by the Government and identifies the types of discovery the Government must disclose upon the Defendant's request. These include: the Defendant's statements and criminal records, document and tangible objects, reports of examinations and tests, and expert witnesses' opinions. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A)-(E).
Rule 16(a)(2) then limits the information that a defendant is entitled to receive. In pertinent part, the Rule states:
Except as provided [in Rule 16(a)(1)(A)-(E)], this
rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of
reports, memoranda, or other internal government
documents made by the attorney for the government or
other government agents in connection with the
investigation or prosecution of the case. Nor does
this rule authorize the discovery or inspection of
statements made by government witnesses or prospective
government witnesses except as provided in
18 U.S.C. § 3500.
"Rule 16(a)(2) bars disclosure of reports generated by local law enforcement agents, even when subpoenaed pursuant to Rule 17(c)." United States v. Jenkins, No. 02 Cr. 1384 (RCC), 2003 WL 1461477, *5 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 21, 2003); see also United States v. Chen De Yian, No. 94 Cr. 719(DLC), 1995 WL 614563, *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 19, 1995) ("Discovery is barred by Rule 16(a) (2) and that bar cannot be circumvented by a Rule 17(c) subpoena."); Cherry, 876 F. Supp. at 547 (granting motion to quash subpoenas requesting disclosure of reports prepared by the NYPD). Therefore, the [ Page 3]
defendant is not entitled to pre-trial discovery of the NYPD investigatory files and on this ground the subpoena must be quashed.
Moreover, the NYPD subpoena must be quashed for it also fails to satisfy the requirements of Rule 17(c). A defendant seeking the production of documents pursuant to Rule 17(c) has the burden of demonstrating: (1) the documents are evidentiary and relevant; (2) they are not otherwise procurable by the defendant reasonably in advance of trial by the exercise of due diligence; (3) the defendant cannot properly prepare for trial without such production and the failure to obtain it might delay the trial; and (4) the application is not intended as a general "fishing expedition" and was therefore made in good faith. United States v. Jenkins, 2003 WL 1461477 at *5 (citing United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974)). "The proponent of the subpoena has the burden of proving relevance and admissibility and must also identify the materials with specificity." Id. The documents must meet the tests of relevancy and admissibility when they are sought. See id.
Internal NYPD investigative files are inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., United States v. Brown, No. 95 Cr. 168 (AGS), 1995 WL 387698, *10 (S.D.N.Y. June 30, 1995) ("Such [NYPD interview] memoranda would, of course be hearsay and inadmissible as evidence at trial"); United States v. Cuthbertson, 651 F.2d 189 (3d Cir. 1981) (holding materials that were hearsay and therefore not [ Page 4]
admissible at trial were not subject to a Rule 17(c) subpoena). Therefore, Defendant has not sustained his burden of showing the admissibility of the requested documents from the NYPD, and the requirements of Rule 17(c) have not been met.
II. THE BRONX COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE SUBPOENA
The Bronx County District Attorney's Office (the "Office") also moves quash a subpoena served by Ceballo on the grounds that the records sought are sealed pursuant to New York State Criminal Procedure Law § 160.50(1). The Office further asserts that the file could contain "privileged, non-disclosable information, such as witness statements, to which Mr. Ceballo would not be entitled" in the absence of a "compelling and particularized need." Letter from Assistant District Attorney Lara R. ...