Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00347/USCOURTS-caed-1_08-cr-00347-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph Brown
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

USA, 

Plaintiff,

v.

JOSEPH BROWN, 

Defendant.

 /

CASE NO. 1:08CR347 LJO 

ORDER ON DEFENSE MOTIONS

The Court has received and reviewed Documents 31, 32 and 33 filed by the Defendant,

and hereby responds as follows:

1) Documents 31 and 33 appear to be requesting the same remedy and will be treated as one

(Motion to preclude evidence of prior conviction);

2) Tentative Ruling on Motion to Preclude Evidence of Prior Conviction:

The Defendant has been convicted of First Degree Murder. Defendant 

acknowledges that ordinarily this would be admissible for impeachment

purposes if the defendant testifies (FRE 609(a)(1)). Defendant argues that 

because the jury will know that the crime took place while the defendant was

serving time in a Federal Penitentiary, that pursuant to FRE 403, there is no

need to discuss his prior conviction.

Tentative: that in weighing and balancing as required by FRE 403, the 

Court grants in part and denies in part the motion. If the defendant takes the

stand and testifies, the Government will be able to ask him whether or not he

1

Case 1:08-cr-00347-DAD Document 35 Filed 07/06/10 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

has been convicted of a felony involving moral turpitude. If the Defendant 

admits the conviction of a crime of moral turpitude, no further questions will be 

asked concerning that felony conviction. If, on the other hand, he denies it, then

at that point, the instant motion is denied in its entirety. 

3) Defendant Brown indicates that there is still a discovery dispute over their

Request #5, to wit: 

 "The defense believes that Officer Tiscareno violated protocol when he entered

Mr. Brown's cell at the time of the incident on May 22, 2008. The defense requests

copies of any BOP and/or USP Atwater rules, regulations, training materials or other

items which set forth policies, standards or protocols for entering the cells of unrestrained

inmates. Fed.R.Crim.P 16(a)(1)(E)(I); Brady, 373 U.S. 83."

 Defendant Brown has requested that the motion be placed on calendar for argument on

Friday, July 9, 2011. That request is granted. It will be heard at 10:15 a.m.

In reviewing the discovery motion originally filed (document #28), the motion is not

specific enough for the Court to determine whether or not the request as quoted above fits into

the discovery scheme of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, or rather is nothing more than

a fishing expedition.

Whether there exist rules, regulations, training materials or other items which set forth

policies, standards or protocols for entering the cells of unrestrained inmates, it must be clear

before discovery is permitted that the specific request indeed be specific and relevance either to

an element of the crimes charged or an affirmative defense. 

Defendant must therefore provide the Court with enough information about why this

request is being made so that a ruling can be made. This information must be filed no later than

11 a.m. on Thursday, July 8, 2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 6, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:08-cr-00347-DAD Document 35 Filed 07/06/10 Page 2 of 2