United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND MOTION
TO EXCLUDE 404(b) EVIDENCE, DENYING MOTION TO QUASH
INDICTMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION
OF DETENTION ORDER, AND SETTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE
F. Cox United States District Judge.
criminal case Defendants Jason Manning and Gregory Hendon
have filed Motions for Additional Discovery (Doc. # 37), to
Quash the First Superseding Indictment for Prejudicial
Pre-Indictment Delay (Doc. # 34), to Exclude 404(b) Evidence
(Doc. # 33), and to Suppress Evidence (Doc. # 35). Defendant
Hendon has also filed a Motion for Revocation of Detention
Order (Doc. # 49). The Court held a hearing on these motions
on February 16, 2018.
reasons below, the Court shall grant the Motion for
Additional Discovery, deny the Motion to Quash without
prejudice, grant the Motion to Exclude 404(b) Evidence, and
deny the Motion for Revocation of Detention order. The Court
shall also adjourn the Motion to Suppress Evidence.
August 2013, Defendants Jason Manning and Gregory Hendon were
arrested after Detroit Police Department officers found them
in the same apartment as packets and rocks of heroin, cell
phones, a scale, a loaded shotgun, and some cash. Despite the
arrest, Defendants were not charged with a crime.
2016, after investigating the use of the recovered shotgun in
an April 2013 murder, federal law enforcement officials
became aware that Defendants had never been charged for the
August 2013 incident. A criminal complaint was issued in June
2017 and a grand jury returned an indictment in July 2017,
charging Manning with drugs and weapons offenses. Two months
later, the grand jury returned a first superseding indictment
against Manning and Hendon.
February 2018, the grand jury returned a second superseding
indictment, charging Manning and Hendon with: conspiracy to
distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21
U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; possession with intent to
distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of
a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18
U.S.C. § 924(c), and felon in possession of a firearm,
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Doc. # 47). The indictment also
charges Manning possession with intent to distribute
marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).
Motion for Additional Discovery
begin, Defendants have moved for additional discovery,
seeking an order compelling the Government to produce
numerous discovery items. For the reasons stated at the
hearing, the Court shall grant Defendants' motion. The
Government shall respond to the requests in ¶¶ 1-6
of that motion. If the Government has any of the discovery
requested in those paragraphs, the Government shall produce
and/or disclose it to Defendants. If the Government does not
have any of the discovery requested in those paragraphs, it
shall inform Defendants of this fact.
Motion to Quash the Indictment
Defendants have moved to quash the indictment, arguing that
the four-year delay between their arrest and the first
superseding indictment violated their due process rights.
of limitations provide the primary guarantee against
“bringing overly stale criminal charges.”
United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971).
But the Due Process Clause also protects against oppressive
pre-indictment delay, requiring dismissal if “the
defendant shows substantial prejudice to his right to a fair
trial and that the delay was an intentional device by ...