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. Mitchell

United States District Court, Tenth Circuit

January 15, 2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
WILLIAM D. MITCHELL, Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DAVID J. WAXSE, Magistrate Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on three motions. Through counsel, Defendant William D. Mitchell has filed a Motion for Brady Material (ECF No. 47). Mitchell moves pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States for an order to the Government to produce six categories of material. The Government opposes this motion as moot. Mitchell has also filed two motions for relief pro se. The first pro se motion (ECF No. 58) is untitled and asks the court for an explanation of the law and for a copy of the Grand Jury transcripts. The second pro se motion is titled Motion for Omnibus Hearing Ex Parte (ECF No. 57) and requests that Mitchell be shown all discovery in the possession of his attorney. For the reasons set forth below, the Court concludes that the Motion for Brady Material should be denied as moot, the pro se Motion for Omnibus Hearing Ex Parte should be denied as moot, and the first pro se motion should be stricken as disallowed hybrid representation.

I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Mitchell is charged in Count 1 with conspiracy to distribute cocaine base, in Counts 2 and 3 with possession with the intent to distribute cocaine base, and in Count 4 with use of a telephone to facilitate the offense alleged in Count 1.[1]

On November 7, 2013, Mitchell filed his Motion for Brady Material. On November 19, 2013, Mitchell filed his first pro se motion in the form of an untitled letter to the judge requesting an explanation of the law and an order to the government to produce a copy of the Grand Jury transcripts. On November 25, 2013, Mitchell filed his second pro se motion, titled Motion for Omnibus Hearing Ex Parte. On November 26, 2013, District Judge Vratil referred the Motion for Brady Material to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. On November 27, 2013, the government filed its Consolidated Response (ECF No. 55) to the Motion for Brady Material. On December 3, 2013, Judge Vratil referred the pro se Motion for Omnibus Hearing Ex Parte to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. On December 10, 2013, Judge Vratil referred the untitled first pro se motion to the undersigned Magistrate Judge. The Court is now ready to rule on the motions.

II. MOTION FOR BRADY MATERIAL

Pursuant to Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States , Mitchell moves for material in the government's possession to be produced at the earliest time.[2] Specifically, Mitchell requests the following six categories of information as it relates to the government's witnesses or of which the government has knowledge:

1. Any deals, inducements, plea bargains or otherwise favorable treatment;
2. Any other cases on which the witness is cooperating with the government including the name of the case and the cooperation being offered in the parallel case;
3. Any inconsistent statements, denials, recantations, vacillations or uncertainty in the recollection of facts as has been related to the government its agents or any other person known to the government;
4. Any witness or evidence that calls into question the veracity or reliability of any other witness;
5. Any information setting out the results or indication of GPS or other electronic device monitoring whether the government intends to use the same at trial or not; and
6. Any other evidence to be divulged under Brady and Giglio and its progeny.

The government responds that it has already been ordered to produce 5 of the 6 categories under Pretrial Order No. 1, and that its deadline for production has not yet passed. As to the remaining category, the government states that it is in the process of producing the requested materials. As a result, the government argues that the motion is ...


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.