‘Minute Order Form (06/87)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge Ronald A. Guzman Sitting Judge if Other
or Magistrate Judge * than Assigned Judge
CASE NUMBER 02 CR 464-1 DATE 3/17/2004
CASE United States vs. Richard Carmen
TITLE
[In the following box (2) indicate the party filing the motion, e.g., plaintiff, defendant, 3rd party plaintiff, and (b) state briefly the nature

MOTION: of the motion being presented. |

DOCKET ENTRY:

(1) oO Filed motion of [ use listing in “Motion” box above.]

(2) o Brief in support of motion due

GB) im Answer brief to motion due___. Reply to answer brief due.

(4) oO Ruling/Hearing on set for at_

(5) oO Status hearing[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(6) Oo Pretrial conference[held/continued to] [set for/re-set for] on set for at

(ea) a Trial[set for/re-set for] on at

(8) Oo [Bench/Jury trial] [Hearing] held/continued to at

(9) oO This case is dismissed [with/without] prejudice and without costs[by/agreement/pursuant to]

QFRCP4(m) OlLocal Rule 41.1 OFRCP41(a)(1) OO FRCP41(a)(2).

(0) +f [Other docket entry) Defendant Richard Carmen’s Motion to Require Pretrial Notice of the
Government’s Intention to Inquire on Cross Examination of the Defendant as to Specific Instances of
Conduct under Rule 608(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence [123] is DENIED.

(11) [For further detail see order attached to the original minute order.]

No notices required, advised in open court.
No notices required. cnotioes
Notices mailed by judge's staff. x
49 2004
Notified counsel by telephone. chistes”
oY | Docketing to mail notices.

Mail AO 450 form. -
Copy to judge/magistrate judge.

courtroom — date riled notice

ad deputy’s Wile
initials
Date/time received in
rang depty inital

central Clerk’s Office



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES, )
Plaintiff, } 02 CR 464-1
v. } Judge Ronald A. Guzman
)
RICHARD CARMEN, DOCKETED
Defendant. ) MAP i 9 2004

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Defendant Richard Carmen seeks disclosure of any specific instances of misconduct the
government will use to impeach him under Fed. R. Evid. 608(b) should he testify at trial. In
response, the prosecution points out that Rule 608(b) contains no notice provision. Further, “[nJo
tule or rationale guarantees the defense advance knowledge of legitimate impeachment before it
calls a witness.” United States v. Baskes, 649 F.2d 471, 477 (7th Cir. 1980). (Government's
Consolidated Response, at 7)

In point of fact, plaintiff is not seeking evidence that the government intends to use, as
Rule 608(b) does not delineate evidence that the government may actually use in court or
introduce at trial, so much as types of conduct which may be inquired about on cross examination
of defense witnesses. The rule specifically states that prior instances of conduct being used
solely to attack a witness’ credibility may not be proven by extrinsic evidence, but only inquired
into during cross-examination if they relate to the witness’ character for truthfulness. It is,
therefore, not evidence that the defense seeks by this motion, but rather insight into what the

government knows about the defendant’s prior conduct and how it intends to use this knowledge


at trial. The Court agrees with the government that this goes too far. Further, the information -
at least as to the prior conduct, if not the government’s intention to use it - is easily available to
the defense from the defendant himself. Finally, any particular instances which the defense
objects to can be brought to the court’s attention in a motion in limine.

For the reasons stated above defendant’s motion for disclosure of Rule 608 evidence of

character and conduct is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

HON. RONALD A. GUZA Ra
United States Judge