Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Samuel

April 7, 2010

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MALIK SAMUEL, A/K/A "SIZZLES", DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge

DECISION AND ORDER

This case was referred to the undersigned by the Hon. Richard J. Arcara, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), for all pretrial matters and to hear and report upon dispositive motions. Dkt. #6.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

The defendant, Malik Samuel, is charged in a two-count Indictment with having violated Title 18, United States Code, Sections 922(g)(1) and 924(a)(2) (Count 1) and the defendant also faces a forfeiture count (Count 2) pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 924(d) and 3665, and Title 28, United States Code, Section 2461(c). Dkt. #1.

Presently pending before this Court is the defendant's omnibus motion for discovery and motion to suppress physical evidence, statements made by the defendant and "audiotape evidence." Dkt. ##4 and 11.*fn1 This Court's Report, Recommendation and Order on defendant's motion to suppress will be addressed and filed separately. The government filed its response to the defendant's motion to suppress and omnibus motion for discovery on July 24, 2009 (Dkt. #7) and thereafter, the government filed an amended response on July 27, 2009 (Dkt. #8).*fn2 By the instant motion, the defendant requests permission to join in the discovery and inspection demands of the co-defendants and seeks to join in all pretrial motions filed by co-defendants. In addition, the defendant seeks the disclosure of informant information, Jencks Act material, Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 404(b) material and Federal Rules of Evidence Rules 608 and 609 material. Dkt. #11. Oral argument on the defendant's motions was held on September 9, 2009.

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Request for Joinder

Defendant requests to join in the discovery and inspection demands of the co-defendants and to join in all pretrial motions filed by co-defendants. Dkt. #11, p.1.

As correctly stated by counsel for the government in its response to the instant motion and as is reflected on the face of the Indictment returned by the Federal Grand Jury, there are no co-defendants in his case. See Dkt. #1; Dkt. #8, p.3. Accordingly, defendant's request is denied as moot.

Disclosure of Informant Information

The defendant seeks the pretrial disclosure of the identity, written statements and criminal records of all informants used by the government in connection with the investigation of this matter. Dkt. #11, p.4. In support of this request, the defendant states that,

[t]he defendant requires this information given the inherent unreliability of co-defendants and accomplices. Pre-trial disclosure will permit a fair trial for the defendant where the defense will have sufficient information to fully evaluate the credibility of those the government has relied upon in securing any warrants and in support of the allegations contained in the indictment.

Dkt. #11, p.4. In its response, the government states, "[t]he government did not utilize any confidential informants during the investigation of this matter." Dkt. #8, p.8. Based on the representations made by counsel ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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