Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-01142/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cr-01142-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Dragan Ubiparipovic
Defendant
United States of America
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Dragan Ubiparipovic, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CR-04-1142-PHX-DGC

ORDER

Defendant Dragan Ubiparipovic has asked the Court to issue an order compelling the

Government to produce certain information. Doc. #76. Alternatively, Defendant seeks the

issuance of a subpoena. Id. The Government opposes Defendant’s request for an order

compelling it to produce information. Doc. #87. A hearing was held on April 19, 2006. 

Defendant seeks to obtain the names and addresses of all employees of the

International Organization for Migration (“IOM”), in Belgrade, for the years 1999, 2000, and

2001. Defendant believes that some of these employees will testify that IOM employees

routinely told individuals in Defendant’s position not to mention their service in the BosnianSerb army when applying for admission to the United States. Defendant asserts that such

testimony will support an estoppel by entrapment defense and will bolster Defendant’s

credibility when he testifies about receiving such advice. 

A. Brady and Giglio. 

Defendant seeks disclosure on several legal grounds: Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83

(1963); Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); and Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i) of the Federal

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 91 Filed 04/25/06 Page 1 of 4
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

- 2 -

Rules of Criminal Procedure. Under Brady’s constitutional mandate, the Government “is

obligated by the requirements of due process to disclose material exculpatory evidence on

its own motion, without request.” Carriger v. Stewart, 132 F.3d 463, 479 (9th Cir. 1997).

Under Giglio, the Government’s obligation to disclose exculpatory evidence was expanded

to include information that could be used to impeach Government witnesses. See Giglio, 405

U.S. at 154. Because Defendant has made no showing that employees of the IOM’s Belgrade

office do in fact possess exculpatory evidence, or that they possess evidence that could be

used to impeach Government witnesses, the Court will not at this time order the Government

to produce the information under Brady and Giglio.

B. Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i).

Under Rule 16(a)(1)(E), the Government must disclose various documents and objects

“if the item is within the Government’s possession, custody or control and: (i) the item is

material to preparing the defense . . . .” For purposes of Defendant’s motion, two issues must

be addressed: (1) are the names and addresses of the IOM Belgrade employees within the

“possession, custody, or control” of the Government, and (2) are the names and addresses

“material to preparing the defense”?

1. Possession, Custody, or Control.

Counsel for the Government argues that the IOM is not a Government agency and that

its information is not within the possession, custody or control of the Government. In

response, Defendant has provided the Court with a Memorandum of Understanding signed

in 1997 between a bureau in the State Department and the IOM. Doc. #88, Ex. B. The

Memorandum establishes a contractual relationship between the Government and the IOM

and specifically retains the IOM to perform various tasks on behalf of the Government.

These include registering and interviewing applicants for refugee status, assisting the

applicants in completion of temporary asylum requests, photographing and identifying

applicants, arranging medical examinations of applicants, providing required inoculations

of applicants, assembling biographical, medical, and sponsorship information regarding

applicants, obtaining authorization from foreign governments for the applicants to travel to

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 91 Filed 04/25/06 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

the United States, and arranging for transportation of applicants to the United States. These

clearly are governmental functions delegated to the IOM in the Memorandum. It thus

appears that the IOM acts as an agent of the Government in performing these functions.

Counsel for the Government provided no basis for concluding otherwise.

The Ninth Circuit has held that the question of whether information is in the

“possession, custody or control” of the Government for purposes of Rule 16(a)(1)(E) turns

on “whether the United States Attorney had ‘knowledge of and access to’ the documents.”

United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 1995) (quoting United States v. Brian,

858 F.2d 1032, 1036 (9th Cir. 1989)). There is no dispute in this case that the United States

Attorney has knowledge of the existence of the requested information – the names and

addresses of IOM’s Belgrade employees. The unresolved question is whether the United

States Attorney has access to that information.

Government counsel explained at the hearing that he has asked the State Department

to assist in obtaining the information. The State Department in turn provided counsel with

the name of an IOM contact in Europe. When that individual was contacted, he did not

provide the information. Government counsel agreed, however, that he has not asked the

State Department to request the information from IOM as the State Department’s agent under

the Memorandum. Whether such a request will provide access to the information, or whether

there is some legal basis for the State Department not to request the information or for IOM

to refuse to respond, are presently unknown.

If Defendant makes the materiality showing required below, the Court will issue an

order directing the United States Attorney to obtain the documents through such a request.

If the United States Attorney determines through this effort that he does not in fact have

access to the information, the Court will reconsider whether the Government has “possession,

custody, or control” of the information within the meaning of Rule 16(a)(1)(E). 

C. Materiality.

To obtain discovery of items under Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i), defendants “must make a

threshold showing of materiality, which requires a presentation of ‘facts which would tend

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 91 Filed 04/25/06 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

to show that the Government is in possession of information helpful to the defense.’”

Santiago, 46 F.3d at 894 (quoting United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir.

1990)). At the hearing, defense counsel suggested that he could make this showing by

affidavit. On or before April 28, 2006, defense counsel shall file affidavits or other

information to satisfy the materiality showing required for discovery of the information at

issue. The Court will review defense counsel’s submissions and decide whether the required

showing has been made. If it has, the Court will, as noted above, issue an order requiring the

United States Attorney to obtain information from the IOM through the State Department and

will, if necessary, subsequently address the question of whether the Government has access

to the requested information through this means.

D. Subpoena.

As an alternative, defense counsel requested that the Court issue a subpoena to IOM’s

New York office. (The IOM Belgrade office apparently has been closed.) In a effort to save

time in obtaining the information at issue, the Court will sign such a subpoena. This second

means of discovery is appropriate given the uncertainty as to how best to obtain the

information at issue. Defense counsel is directed to prepare and submit a subpoena to the

Court.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s motion for discovery re: IOM Belgrade Staff

(Doc. #76) is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in this Order.

DATED this 25th day of April, 2006.

Case 2:04-cr-01142-DGC Document 91 Filed 04/25/06 Page 4 of 4