United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
& ORDER GRANTING IN PART, DENYING IN PART, AND RESERVING
RULING IN PART ON DEFENDANT EDWIN MILLS'S MOTION TO
COMPEL DISCOVERY (Dkt. 552) AND DEFENDANT CARLO WILSON'S
SEALED MOTION FOR DISCOVERY PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 16 (DKT. 564)
A. GOLDSMITH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
criminal case involves multiple defendants, all of whom have
been charged with violating the Racketeering Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act (the “RICO” Act), 18
U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. Defendant Edwin Mills has
filed a motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 552), and Defendant
Carlo Wilson has filed a sealed motion for discovery pursuant
to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 (Dkt. 564). The
Government filed a single response in opposition to these
motions (Dkt. 593), to which Mills and Wilson replied (Dkt.
648, 608, respectively).
February 12, 2019, the Court issued an order directing the
parties to confer in good faith to resolve any discovery
disputes raised in Defendants' motions. See
2/12/2019 Order at 4 (Dkt. 763). If the parties were unable
to resolve certain issues, the Court further ordered
Defendants to file a memorandum, detailing which precise
discovery issue necessitated the Court's intervention.
Id. at 5. After various stipulated extensions, Mills
and Wilson each filed a memorandum (Dkts. 821, 865,
respectively), to which the Government responded (Dkt.
hearing on Defendants' discovery motions was held on July
24, 2019. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Court
afforded Defendants the opportunity to file a joint statement
on or before July 26, 2019, outlining each remaining
discovery dispute that had not yet been resolved. The
Government could then file a response to that statement on or
before August 7, 2019. Defendants timely filed their joint
statement (Dkt. 1005). Because several issues can be resolved
at this time without the Government's response to the
joint statement, the Court grants in part and denies in part
Defendants' motions, and it reserves ruling on any
discovery issues raised in the joint statement but not
addressed in this opinion and order.
the Court has previously described the factual and procedural
background of this case in greater detail in other opinions,
it need not do so again for purposes of the present motion.
See, e.g., United States v. Mills, 378
F.Supp.3d 563 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (denying motions to dismiss);
United States v. Mills, No. 16-cr-20460, 2019 WL
1915762 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 30, 2019) (denying motions for bills
of particulars); United States v. Mills, 367
F.Supp.3d 664 (E.D. Mich. 2019) (granting in part and denying
in part motion to preclude rap lyrics and videos).
STANDARDS OF DECISION
contrast to the broad scope of discovery in civil cases, the
discovery available to a criminal defendant is relatively
constricted. For most criminal prosecutions, there are three
governing rules that “‘exhaust the universe of
discovery to which [a] defendant is entitled.'”
United States v. Watson, 787 F.Supp.2d 667, 672
(E.D. Mich. 2011) (quoting United States v. Presser,
844 F.2d 1275, 1285 n.12 (6th Cir. 1988)).
first is the Brady doctrine, derived from Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1962), which requires the
Government to disclose evidence that is favorable to the
accused and material to guilt or sentencing, as well as
evidence that could be used to impeach the credibility of a
government witness. Watson, 787 F.Supp.2d at 672
second is Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a), which
“requires the government to disclose, upon a
defendant's request, any oral or written statements of
the defendant, the defendant's prior record, any
documents or tangible evidence within the government's
possession, custody or control [that are material to the
defense or to be used in the Government's case-in-chief],
reports of examinations or tests, and a summary of any expert
witness testimony.” Watson, 787 F.Supp.2d at
672 (citation and quotation marks omitted); Presser,
844 F.2d at 1285 (“[D]iscovery afforded by Rule 16 is
limited to the evidence referred to in its express
third is the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, which
“‘generally requires the government, on motion of
a defendant, to produce statements in its possession of
witnesses who testify at trial.'” Watson,
787 F.Supp.2d at 672 (quoting United States v.
Short, 671 F.2d 178, 185 (6th Cir. 1982)); 18 U.S.C.
§ 3500(b); see also United States v. Davis,
306 F.3d 398, 421 (6th Cir. 2002) (“When Brady
material sought by a defendant is covered by the Jencks Act .
. . the terms of that Act govern the timing of the
government's disclosure.”); Presser, 844
F.2d at 1282-1285 (holding that neither Brady,
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), nor
Rule 16 gives a defendant the right to broad pretrial
discovery of impeachment evidence, the disclosure of which is
instead controlled by the Jencks Act).
motions fall predominantly within the second category above,
as they each make numerous requests for discovery under Rule
16. The Court addresses each motion ...