United States District Court, S.D. New York
For Arnaldo Mendinueta-Ibarro, also known as Dread Dread, Defendant: Ronald Leon Garnett, Law Offices of Ronald L. Garnett, New York, NY.
For USA, Plaintiff: Kan.Min Nawaday, United States Attorney Office, SDNY, New York, NY; Santosh Shankaran Aravind, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY (St Andw's), New York, NY.
DECISION AND ORDER
Victor Marrero, United States District Judge.
By Superseding Indictment dated May 16, 2012 (the " Indictment" ), a grand jury charged defendants Maria Duprey (" Duprey" ), Brian Gilbert (" Gilbert" ), Lazaro Martinez (" L. Martinez" ), Rafael Martinez (" R. Martinez" ), and Rossell Pauley (" Pauley" ) (collectively, the " Moving Defendants" ), along with defendants Arnaldo Mendinueta-Ibarro, Gerado Machado, and Benito Monterey, with conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute 280 grams or more of " crack" cocaine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 and 21 U.S.C. § 841(b)(1)(A). (Dkt. No. 5.)
The Moving Defendants -- either through their respective motions or by joining another Moving Defendant's motion -- move for orders to: (1) suppress Title III wiretap evidence; (2) direct the Government to provide a bill of particulars pursuant to Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; (3) direct the Government to produce material pursuant to Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), and its progeny; and (4) direct the Government to disclose evidence it intends to offer at trial under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. (Dkt. Nos. 75, 76, 78, 79, 80.) In addition, Pauley moves to sever his trial from the trial of his co-defendants (Dkt. No. 78) and R. Martinez moves to strike the use of his alias " Rafaelito" from the Indictment as surplusage (Dkt. No. 75).
For the reasons set forth below, the Moving Defendants' motions are DENIED, Pauley's severance motion is DENIED, and R. Martinez's motion to strike the use of his alias is DENIED.
I. WIRETAP EVIDENCE
The Moving Defendants move to suppress wire communications intercepted by law enforcement officials pursuant to an Order issued by Honorable Robert Sweet dated November 7, 2011 (the " Order" ) and extensions or related subsequent orders issued on December 15, 2011 by Honorable Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum; on January 27, 2012 by Honorable John Keenan; and on April 18, 2012 by Honorable Richard Berman (collectively, the " Subsequent Orders" ). The Moving Defendants argue
that the Order improperly authorized the use of electronic wire surveillance without a sufficient showing that other investigative procedures would not have achieved the goals of the investigation. The Court is not persuaded that the Order and Subsequent Orders were issued improperly ...