1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, :

Plaintiff, :

vs. : Case No. 2:18-CR-00147

BILAL EL YOUSSEPH, : Judge James L. Graham

Defendant. :

MOTION OF DEFENDANT, BILAL EL YOUSSEPH, FOR PRODUCTION OF 

EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE

Pursuant to the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, 

Defendant Bilal El Yousseph, by and through undersigned counsel, moves this Court for an Order 

compelling the Government's production of all evidence known or which may become known to the 

United States Attorney favorable to the Defendant, and material to either guilt or punishment, 

including the following:

A. Prior felony, misdemeanor convictions, and/or juvenile adjudications for all witnesses 

expected to be called by the Government

1) at the trial;

2) who testified before any grand jury concerning this case; or

3) who furnished oral or written statements during the investigation of this case.

B. Specific incidents of misconduct "bad acts," by all witnesses expected to be called by the 

Government, whether or not such conduct resulted in a criminal conviction.

C. Disclosure by the Government of any and all consideration it has held out to a witness, or 

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 1 of 7 PAGEID #: 25
2

the witness' attorneys, to encourage that witness' cooperation with the Government. This request 

includes, but is not limited to: grants or promises of immunity; confirmed or tentative plea 

bargaining; monetary compensation; assistance in avoiding prosecution in other jurisdictions; 

omission from being named in an indictment or as an unindicted co-conspirator; civil or tax 

immunity grants; assistance or favorable treatment or recommendations with respect to any 

criminal, civil, tax court, court of claims, administrative or other legal dispute with the Government 

(State or Federal); or any other considerations, regardless of their nature, granted or promised, 

which contemplate leniency or preferential treatment in exchange for cooperation with the 

Government.

D. The existence of pending criminal charges, either felony, misdemeanor, or juvenile, as 

well as parole or probation status, or deferred prosecution status, of any and all witnesses the 

Government expects to call, and any other pending or potential legal disputes and/or transactions 

each Government witness may have with the Government.

E. The disclosure of the utilization of any line-up or show-up procedures or photographic 

arrays conducted in the investigation of the case; and the time, date, place, and all participants in 

these proceedings, as well as the particular law enforcement agency conducting same.

F. The results of any line-up, show-up, or photograph identification proceedings as 

conducted by law enforcement agencies, as well as all descriptions given by witnesses regarding the 

identification of the Defendant or any other alleged perpetrators.

G. Statements or summaries of statements from Government witnesses, and individuals the 

government does not intend to call as witnesses, obtained by law enforcement agencies

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 2 of 7 PAGEID #: 26
3

which include references to the Defendant's lack of involvement concerning the commission of each 

alleged offense, or which are otherwise favorable to the Defendant.

H. The disclosure of the psychiatric background of all witnesses the Government expects to 

call at trial.

I. The Court is also requested to order that all Government witnesses be required to 

maintain notes from interviews conducted during the course of this investigation in order to 

determine the existence of exculpatory matters that may be subject to production under the mandate 

of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

J. Psychiatric or psychological reports concerning the Defendant's insanity. 

K. Specific evidence which detracts from the credibility or probative value of testimony or 

evidence used by the Government.

L. The personnel file of all Government witnesses, and identity of any Government files 

concerning the Government witness, or in which the Government witness is mentioned. 

Respectfully submitted,

_/s/_Andrew Sanderson___________________

Andrew Sanderson, #0066327

Attorney for Defendant

BURKETT & SANDERSON, Inc.

73 North Sixth Street

Newark, Ohio 43055

(740) 345-0417

 (740) 345-6677 – Fax

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 3 of 7 PAGEID #: 27
4

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

As this Court is aware, the disclosure of evidence favorable to the accused includes 

impeachment material that may affect Government witnesses, since such information is material to 

both guilt and punishment, Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); United States v. Agurs, 427 

U.S. 97 (1976); United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 

(1995).

In Brady v. Maryland, supra, the Supreme Court held that, irrespective of good or bad faith, 

suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to a Defendant who has requested it violates 

due process where such evidence is material either to guilt or punishment. Brady imposes an 

affirmative duty on the prosecution to produce, at the appropriate time requested, evidence that is 

materially favorable to the accused, either as direct or impeachment evidence. This, of course, 

includes grand jury testimony of a witness where favorable evidence exists that must be disclosed 

pursuant to the Brady rule. See, generally, United States v. Campagnuolo, 595 F.2d 852 (5th Cir. 

1979); United States v. Azzarelli Construction Company, 459 F.Supp. 146 (E.D. Ill. 1978); United 

States v. Brighton Building Maintenance Company, 435 F.Supp. 222 (N.D. Ill. 1 affirmed 598 F.2d 

1101 (1979). The Defendant is mindful of the specificity requirements of Brady and Agurs, and 

therefore, the above-listed demands for favorable information, including impeachment evidence 

concerning Government witnesses, are set forth in detailed fashion.

It is mandatory that evidence that may be used to substantially impeach the credibility of 

Government witnesses be disclosed to the defense. Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66 (1967); United 

States v. Crowell, 586 F.2d 1020 (4th Cir. 1978); United States v. Butler, 567, F.2d 885 (9th Cir. 

1978). The Government must also reveal promises of leniency or immunity for its witnesses. 

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 4 of 7 PAGEID #: 28
5

Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972); United States v. Joseph, 533 F.2d 282 (5th Cir. 1976); 

United States v. Pfingst, 490 F.2d 262 (2d Cir. 1973).

Upon request, the Government must disclose the prior criminal record, or other prior material 

acts of misconduct, of its witnesses. United States v. Seijo, 514 F.2d 1357 (2d Cir. 1975). 

Additionally, pending charges against a Government witness must also be disclosed by the 

Government. United States v. Friend, 486 F.2d 201 (2d Cir. 1973). Likewise, any correspondence 

or other communications sent to the prosecutor, of the promises, preferential treatment, or 

indicating pressure to testify, must be disclosed to the defense. United States v. Badalamente, 507 

F.2d 12 (2d Cir. 1974).

Where a Government employee serves as a prosecution witness, the Defendant is entitled to 

have access to his or her Government personnel file in order to ascertain whether there is 

information within it which could be of an impeaching nature, United States v. Austin 492 F.Supp. 

502 (D.C. Ill 1980); United States v. Henthorn 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991) reh'g. denied 112 S.Ct. 

2003 (1992). All government files should be identified so that specific and appropriate motions can 

be addressed to them.

The Defendant has also specifically requested the psychiatric history of Government witnesses 

as Brady material. The Government is required, upon specific demand, to provide this information. 

Chavis v. North Carolina, 637 F.2d 213 (4th Cir. 1980); United States v. Society of Independent 

Gasoline Marketers, 624 F.2d 261 (4th Cir. 1979); United States v. McFarland, 371 F.2d 701 (2d 

Cir. 1966).

The same requirement of disclosure is true if the Government knew a witness had an appetite 

for narcotic drugs at the time of the relevant events, United States v. Kinard, 465 F.2d 566, 570-74 

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 5 of 7 PAGEID #: 29
6

(D.C. Cir. 1972), or during trial, Wilson v. United States, 232 U.S. 563, 568 (1914).

Failure of the Government to provide favorable evidence, including impeachment matters as 

specifically requested above, may constitute reversible error. See United States v. Minsky, 963 F.2d 

870, 874 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. Iverson, 637 F.2d 799 (D.C. Cir. 1981); United States v. 

Bigeleisen, 625 F.2d 203 (8th Cir. 1980); United States v. Auten, 632 F.2d 478 (5th Cir. 1980); 

Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995).

The Defendant specifically requests this Court to authorize disclosure for requested Brady

material as soon as practicable in order that the Defendant may use this information in preparation 

of his defense. Disclosure of Brady material in advance of trial has been judicially ordered, United 

States v. Bernal-Obeso, 989 F.2d 331, 336 (9th Cir. 1993). See United States v. Pollack, 534 F.2d 

964 (D.C. Cir. 1975); Grant v. Aldredge, 498 F.2d 376 (2nd Cir. 1974); United States v. Deutsch, 

373 F.Supp. 289 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); United States v. Thevis, 84 F.R.D. 48 (N.D. Ga. 1979).

It is, therefore, respectfully requested that all evidence favorable to the accused be produced in 

advance of trial in order that the Defendant's right to due process of law be fully afforded. 

Further, Defendant requests that any information which the Government determines is not 

exculpatory be provided to this Court for an “in camera” review. United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 

348 (D.C. Cir. 1993); United States v. Minsky, 963 F.2d 870 (6th Cir. 1992); United States v. 

Rewald, 889 F.2d 836 (9th Cir. 1989).

Wherefore, it is respectfully requested that the motion be granted. 

_/s/_Andrew Sanderson___________________

Andrew Sanderson, #0066327

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 6 of 7 PAGEID #: 30
7

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify a copy of the foregoing was duly served upon the Office of the United States 

Attorney, 303 Marconi Boulevard, Suite 200, Columbus, Ohio 43215, by electronic transmission on 

this 30th day of August, 2018.

_/s/_Andrew Sanderson___________________

Andrew Sanderson, #0066327

Attorney for Defendant

Case: 2:18-cr-00147-JLG Doc #: 18 Filed: 08/30/18 Page: 7 of 7 PAGEID #: 31