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. Graham

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

October 24, 2016

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
QUINCY GRAHAM, Defendant.

          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]

          GEORGE CARAM STEEH, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This 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.

         1. Motion for Bill of Particulars [Doc. 243]

         Defendant's 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.

         An 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).

         A bill 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 seized.

         Between 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.

         2. Motion for Production of All Co-Defendants' Statements [Doc. 244]

         Defendant 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.

         3. 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]

         Defendant 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.

         4. Motion for Early Production of Jencks Material [Doc. 245]

         Defendant 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.

         5. Motion for Disclosure of Expert Witness ...


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.