E.D.Tenn.: Informant privilege protects audio of controlled buy from discovery where it was only used to get SW and was not a basis for the charge

Audio of a controlled buy is protected by the informant privilege. Also, the court seems skeptical that it would satisfy the requirement of information for the “defense” because the controlled buy was only used to get the search warrant and the product of the search is what he is being prosecuted for. Finally, it seems speculative that it would provide anything because he has yet to file a motion to suppress [despite the chick-egg rationale?]. United States v. Parks, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48308 (E.D. Tenn. June 9, 2009):

The government argues the audio recording of the controlled buy is neither relevant nor material to the preparation of the defendant’s defense and therefore is not discoverable. “[I]n the context of Rule 16, ‘the defendant’s defense’ means the defendant’s response to the Government’s case in chief.” United States v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456, 462 (1996) (addressing when the government under Rule 16 must produce tangible objects within the custody or control of the government.) Parks is not being prosecuted for the controlled buy, thus an audio recording of the controlled buy is not “material” to the preparation of his defense. It could in no way rebut the government’s case-in-chief for the charges against him — that he was a felon in possession of a handgun and that he possessed an illegal substance for distribution — even if it might in some way be relevant to an argument that he was stopped and evidence was found in violation of the Fourth Amendment. See Armstrong, 517 U.S. at 462 (“While it might be argued that as a general matter, the concept of a “defense” includes any claim that is a “sword,” challenging the prosecution’s conduct of the case, the term may encompass only the narrower class of “shield” claims, which refute the Government’s arguments that the defendant committed the crime charged.”) See also United States v. Happ, 2008 WL 5101214 *3 (S.D. Ohio Nov. 25, 2008) (“To satisfy the materiality standard, the information sought must be relevant to an argument the defendant would make to refute the government’s case-in-chief); United States v. Jordan, 2007 WL 1849985 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 2007) (Guyton, J.) (“In keeping with Armstrong, the Court defines the ‘defendant’s defense’ to mean that which is ‘material to the defendant’s direct response to the government’s case-in-chief.'”) Since the recording of the controlled buy cannot rebut the government’s case-in-chief in the instant prosecution, the defendant is not entitled to the recording of the controlled buy under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not raising the alleged forgery of the search warrant in the suppression hearing. Davis v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48467 (W.D. N.C. June 10, 2009).*

The record supports the USMJ’s findings that the defendant consented to the entry of his house and the seizure of his computer for a forensic examination later. United States v. Strayer, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 48279 (D. Neb. June 9, 2009).*

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.