United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S PRETRIAL MOTIONS [DOCS.
243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249 AND 250] AND
CO-DEFENDANTS' JOINDERS IN SAID MOTIONS [DOCS. 281, 282,
283, 284, 285, 287, 289, 290, 291, 292, 293 AND 295]
CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the court on defendant Quincy
Graham's eight pretrial motions. Each of the motions has
been joined by co-defendants Arlandis Shy, Eugene Fisher,
Jeffery Adams, Robert Brown, Jerome Gooch, Billy Arnold,
Steven Arthur, Diondre Fitzpatrick, Devon Patterson and
Christopher Owens. The government filed responses to the
motions. The court has determined that oral argument would
not significantly aid the decisional process. Pursuant to
E.D. Mich. Local R. 7.1(e)(2), it is ORDERED that the motion
be resolved without oral argument.
Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 243]
motion requests that the court direct the government to
“[i]dentify the times, places, circumstances,
witnesses, and approximate times” the defendant
committed the racketeering acts alleged in Count One.
indictment “must be a plain, concise, and definite
written statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense charged and must be signed by an attorney for the
government.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). An indictment
satisfies constitutional requirements so long as it contains
the elements of the offense charged, fairly informs the
defendant of the charge against which he must defend, and
enables defendant to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar
of future prosecutions for the same offense. Hamling v.
United States, 418 U.S. 87, 117 (1974).
of particulars is a device used to minimize surprise and
assist defendant in obtaining information needed to prepare a
defense and to preclude a second prosecution for the same
crimes. United States v. Salisbury, 983 F.2d 1369,
1375 (6th Cir. 1993). In this case, the government has
provided defense counsel with discovery materials, including
law enforcement reports for acts occurring in Michigan and
West Virginia, forensic test results, and social media
account information. This discovery identifies the people
involved, the officers who made the arrests, and the evidence
the details provided in the second superseding indictment and
those contained in the discovery materials, the defendant has
been fairly informed of the charges he must defend against,
and is able to plead an acquittal or conviction in bar of
future prosecutions for the same offense. Now, therefore, IT
IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for a bill of
particulars is DENIED.
Motion for Production of All Co-Defendants'
Statements [Doc. 244]
asks for an order that the government turn over statements of
non-cooperating co-defendants made to law enforcement
authorities that the government intends to offer as evidence
in trial in order to avoid any issues implicating Bruton
v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968). The court
believes this motion is premature until such time that trial
groups have been established because the type of statements
requested to be produced only present an issue between
defendants who are tried together. Now, therefore, IT IS
HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion for production of
co-defendants' statements is DENIED without prejudice and
may be renewed once the court has identified trial groupings
in this case.
Motion for Pretrial Disclosure of All Evidence Which the
Government Intends to Offer Pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the
Federal Rules of Evidence [Doc. 246]
asks for an order that the government disclose all evidence
it intends to offer under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) at least 30 days
before trial. The government responds that it is not aware of
any such evidence it intends to present. The government
states that it understands its obligations under Rule 404(b)
and will file any required notice in a timely manner. Now,
therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendant's motion
for disclosure of Rule 404(b) evidence is DENIED as moot.
Motion for Early Production of Jencks Material [Doc.
asks for early production of Jencks material at least 60 days
prior to trial. The government responds that it is its
practice in racketeering cases to produce Jencks materials at
least 30 days prior to trial unless there are specific safety
concerns for a particular witness. Given the nature of the
charges in this case, which include murder and assault with
dangerous weapons, the court agrees that the government's
proposal is appropriate. Now, therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED
that defendant's motion for early production of Jencks
material is DENIED.
Motion for Disclosure of Expert Witness ...