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 of America v. Jose Gonzalez

September 18, 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
JOSE GONZALEZ, LUIS OSORIO, DEFENDANTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Hugh B. Scott

Order

This matter is referred to the undersigned to hear and determine pretrial matters pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A) and, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), to submit proposed findings of facts and recommendations for the disposition of any motion excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) (Docket No. 4).

The instant matter before the Court is defendant Jose Gonzalez' omnibus motion (Docket No. 11) which seeks the following relief: expert disclosure; disclosure of evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b); disclosure of Brady materials; preservation of agents' notes; make Federal Rule of Evidence 807 disclosure; make Federal Rule of Evidence 806 hearsay declarant disclosure; severance and separate trial; joinder in co-defendant's motion (id.). Co-defendant Luis Osorio joins in this motion (see text minute entry, July 6, 2012), thus this omnibus motion will be deemed a joint motion. Osorio moved for a Daubert*fn1 hearing as to the DNA that was used to establish Osorio's possession of the weapons at issue in this case (Docket No. 15); Gonzalez also joined in this Daubert hearing motion (see text minute entry, July 6, 2012). This Daubert issue will be considered in a separate Order.

The Government has filed responding papers (Docket No. 14, Gov't Response), also seeking reciprocal discovery (id. at 11-12), and oral argument was heard on August 20, 2012 (text minute entry, Aug. 20, 2012). Also argued was Osorio's motion for a Daubert hearing (id.) and this Court had reserved decision on both motions. Then Osorio filed additional, supplemental papers on his motion (Docket No. 18). This Court granted the Government leave to respond to them by September 18, 2012, and the Daubert motion would be deemed submitted on September 18, 2012 (Docket No. 19).

BACKGROUND

Defendants are charged with several counts of felon in possession of firearms and ammunition, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g)(1), 924(a)(2); possession of a short-barreled shotgun, in violation of I.R.C. §§ 5822, 5845(a), (1), 5861(c), 5871, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; possession of unregistered short-barreled shotgun, in violation of I.R.C. §§ 5841, 5845(a), 5861, and 18 U.S.C. § 2; possession of a defaced firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(k), 924(a)(2), 2, with forfeiture allegations (Docket No. 3, Indict.). This stems from defendants alleged possession of a Mossberg Model 500A 12-gauge shotgun and 12-gauge shells on December 14, 2011.

DISCUSSION

I. Expert Disclosure

Defendants concede that the Government produced initial, general discovery during its voluntary discovery (Docket No. 11, Gonzalez Atty. Affirm. ¶ 4). Defendants nevertheless now move for Rule 16 expert disclosure from the Government (id. ¶¶ 5-6). The Government agrees to comply with Rule 16(a)(1)(G) and produce its expert disclosure as ordered by this Court. The Government is to provide expert disclosure pursuant to the Final Pretrial Order of the trial judge.

II. Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) Disclosure

Defendants next seek Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) evidence (Docket No. 11, Gonzalez Atty. Affirm. ¶¶ 7-8). The Government replies that it will advise defendants of its intent to use such evidence at the time it produces Jencks Act materials (Docket No. 14, Gov't Response at 8), noting that Gonzalez has full knowledge of his criminal history and the Government intends to use whatever convictions this Court deems to be admissible to attack Gonzalez' credibility if he testifies (id. at 8-9). This notice and its timing are sufficient.

III. Brady Materials

Defendants have requested that the Government disclose all materials potentially favorable to them, including information to be used for the impeachment of the Government's witnesses, as required under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 105 (1979), and their progeny (Docket No. 11, Gonzalez Atty. Affirm. ¶¶ 9-18). Brady material, as those cases have come to define it, includes all evidence which may be favorable to the defendant and material to the issue of guilt or punishment. Such evidence includes "[a]ny and all records and/or information which might be helpful or useful to the defense in impeaching ... [and] [a]ny and all records and information revealing prior misconduct ... attributed to the [Government's] witness," United States v. Kiszewski, 877 F.2d 210 (2d Cir. 1989).

Defendants' motions identify numerous specific categories of documents encompassing both exculpatory and impeachment Brady materials which they seek to obtain. The Government's written response is that it agrees to provide impeachment Brady material pursuant to the briefing schedule set forth by this Court in the Final Pretrial Order, and no later than when ...


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.