Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. JACKSON

United States District Court, S.D. New York


November 9, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
FREDERICK JACKSON and CLEON ROWE, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LAWRENCE MCKENNA, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

The following pending pretrial motions are disposed of as follows:

1.
Defendant Jackson's motion for an order requiring the government to make known to him the identities of the callers who made the 911 calls described by defendant (see Celedonio Letter Br., Oct. 31, 2005, at 2-3 [numbering calls as 1-11]) is granted as to calls 3 and 5. Those callers may have "material evidence favorable to the defense," Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89, 107 (2d Cir. 2001), for substantially the same reasons given in the Court's Memorandum and Order of August 27, 2003 (in which the government was directed to allow defendant Jackson and defendant Rasheem Jordan to listen to the tapes of the same calls). The Court concludes that the identities of the callers on the two tapes (if and when the government learns of such identities) are required to be disclosed under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Brady (unless the 911 calls are offered in evidence or the callers are called as witnesses by the government) is the only valid basis for the disclosure to defendant of the identities of the callers. No showing has been made that any of the other 911 callers may have evidence favorable to the defense, and the motion is denied as to the calls other than 3 and 5.

  2.

  Defendant Jackson's motion to preclude the government's ballistics evidence described in defense counsel's letter on that subject (Celedonio Letter Br., Oct. 31, 2005), or for a hearing on its admissibility, is denied. No reason has been advanced why the evidence should not be admitted, or a hearing to determine admissibility held.

  The Court understands that the issues raised by defendant Jackson's application for the production of material pursuant to Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and 18 U.S.C. ยง 3500 with respect to the government's ballistics expert have been resolved at the conference held on November 8, 2005.

  3.

  The government's motion to quash defendant Jackson's subpoena to the Metropolitan Correction Center (to the extent not rendered moot by the government's agreements on the record at the conference held on November 8, 2005) is granted. The materials sought have not been shown, as they must be under Fed.R. Cr. P. 17, to be relevant and admissible. See United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 700 (1974).

  SO ORDERED.

20051109

© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.