UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD

Gordon Reid

SEALED ORDER

Gordon Reid moves ex parte and under seal to withdraw

certain motions that are duplicates of motions filed by his

standby counsel, moves for payment for services other than

counsel, and seeks to subpoena the personnel records of Renee

King from her former employers. These motions are resolved as

follows.

 Reid’s motion to withdraw his ex parte motions for services

other than counsel and his motions to seal those motions is

granted. Documents numbered 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, and 215 are

withdrawn. Those documents will remain sealed until removed from

the docket, and any file copies will be shredded.

Reid moves for payment for services other than counsel to

retain a psychologist, Donald Davidoff, Ph.D., to testify at

trial and to have his investigator conduct certain interviews. 

His request is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) and §

3006A(d)(4)(B). Reid’s motion to approve payment to Dr. Davidoff

for his appearance at trial is approved. Reid moves to have his

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 5
2

investigator interview certain persons Deborah Poirier identified

during trial as being present when Reid consumed crack cocaine on

the night of the robbery. He explains that he was not aware of

these witnesses until Poirier testified. He also notes that

Oliver Broadbent is alleged to have been present during the

alleged robbery and asks for payment for his investigator to

interview him.

Reid’s request for payment to his investigator to interview

the people identified by Deborah Poirier is granted. With

respect to Oliver Broadbent, however, Reid has been aware since

early in this case that he was present at the store on the night

of the robbery with his father, David Broadbent, who identified

Reid on the night of the robbery and testified at the suppression

hearing and at trial. Further, the court believes that Oliver

Broadbent is a minor. The court will allow payment to the

investigator to interview Oliver Broadbent with the conditions,

if he is indeed a minor, that the investigator first contact

Oliver Broadbent’s parents to seek their permission and to

arrange for the interview, allow the parents to be present during

the interview, and conduct an interview in a manner that is

appropriate given the witness’s age. If at any time during the

interview Oliver Broadbent or his parents want to terminate it,

the investigator shall cease questioning and leave promptly. 

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 5
3

Both Oliver Broadbent and his parents have a right to deny

permission for an interview and the investigator shall respect

that right if they choose to exercise it.

Reid also moves for a subpoena duces tecum for Renee King’s

personnel records pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

17(b) and (c). Subpoenas issued under Rule 17(c) are not a means

of general discovery in criminal cases. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.

for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004); Bowman Dairy Co.

v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951). Therefore, a

defendant seeking a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Federal Rule

of Criminal Procedure 17(c) must show:

(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant;

(2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably

in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3)

that the party cannot properly prepare for trial

without such production and inspection in advance of

trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection

may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that

the application is made in good faith and is not

intended as a general "fishing expedition." 

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698 (1974); accord United

States v. Shinderman, 232 F.R.D. 147, 150 (D. Me. 2005).

Reid states that he needs Renee King’s employment records to

defend against the government’s assertion that Reid’s threats of

violence put King in fear and that she was so affected by the

threats that she has been unable to maintain employment since the

robbery. He apparently hopes to find evidence in the employment

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 5
4

records that King left her subsequent employment for reasons

other than concerns caused by the robbery or that her subsequent

employment was not affected as she has testified. As such, King

seeks impeachment evidence against King on the peripheral topic

of whether fear caused by the robbery affected her subsequent

employment.

While such evidence, if found, might be relevant for

impeachment purposes and is not likely to be otherwise available,

it is not so important as to impair Reid’s ability to properly

prepare for trial. “Generally, the need for evidence to impeach

witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of

trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. Further, there is no basis to

believe that such evidence exists. This is nothing more than a

fishing expedition involving a peripherally relevant matter,

which is not a permitted use of Rule 17(c).

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to

withdraw (document no. 218) and to seal (document no. 217) are

granted. The defendant’s motion for services other than counsel

(psychologist) (document no. 222) and to seal (document no. 221)

are granted. The defendant’s motion for services other than

counsel (investigator) (document no. 216) and motion to seal

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 5
5

(document no. 212) are granted subject to the conditions in this

order. The defendant’s motion for subpoenas (document no. 220)

is denied; the motion to seal (document no. 219) is granted.

Reid shall provide his investigator with a copy of that part

of this order that provides the conditions for the interview with

Oliver Broadbent. The investigator shall inform Oliver

Broadbent’s parents of the interview conditions set forth in this

order at the time he initially contacts them and of their right

and their son’s right to refuse permission for the interview. 

The investigator shall comply with the conditions in the order. 

Failure to comply with the conditions placed on the interview

with Oliver Broadbent is subject to penalty for contempt of

court. 

SO ORDERED.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

March 22, 2006

cc: Gordon Reid, pro se

Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire

Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 5