Source: https://www.scribd.com/document/299864611/02-19-2016-ECF-180-U-S-A-v-A-BUNDY-et-al-Request-for-Discovery-by-Joseph-O-Shaughnessy
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:01:54+00:00

Document:
enforcement involved in the investigation of the case that is either exculpatory or impeaching.).
court exercises discretion to order disclosure).
defendants post-arrest statement where defense strategy affected).
Any agents underlying rough notes of the statements requested in items 2 and 3 above.
obligation under Rule 16(a)(1)(B)(ii) extends to rough interview notes of interviews....); United States v.
disclosure of notes of interview with defendant).
contain material and exculpatory information.
federal agency participating in the same investigation).
toward discovering who was culpable for the crime).
All items in request 6 above which belong to the defendant. Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(iii).
evidence was violation of Rule 12(d)(2) which creates a notice requirement).
informed of the adverse report of the government expert).
Luce v. United States, 469 U.S. 38 (1984).
determine if impeachment matter [allegations that agent accepted bribes] should be disclosed).
an kind relating to this case. See 18 U.S.C. 2511-2522.
government is required to search both national and local criminal record files. See United States v.
information bearing on that witnesss credibility).
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972) (credibility of witness).
1170, 1174 (D.C. Cir. 1973) (pending indictment can be relevant to bias and motive of witness).
or state authorities. United States v. Chitty, 760 F.2d 425, 428 (2d Cir. 1985).
States, 353 U.S. 53 (1957); U.S. Const. amend. VI.
benefits themselves, could have ... substantially impeached [the witnesss] credibility); United States v.
Cir. 1978) (prosecutors assurances of future benefits).
ongoing undercover cooperation in another case); United States v. Butler, 567 F.2d 885, 889 (9th Cir.
1978) (prosecutors assurances of future benefits); United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361, 1375 (8th Cir.
charge, sentence reduction or early parole, whether or not the government agreed to such a request.
Reutter v. Solem, 888 F.2d 578, 581 (8th Cir. 1989); Brown v. Dugger, 831 F.2d 1547, 1558 (11th Cir. 1987).
to disclose leniency deal with witness was material).
witnesss assets, and the status of the witnesss present and past income tax liability. United States v.
cooperation agreement with key witness against defendant).
grand jury testimony of witness that could contradict his trial testimony). United States v. Abel, 469 U.S.
United States v. Foster, 165 F.3d 689, 692 n.5 (9th Cir. 1999).
disclose evidence of misidentification by crucial witness); United States v. Cuffie, 80 F.3d 514, 518 (D.C.
and the existence of such differences should be disclosed under Brady).
1058, 1064 (5th Cir. 1992) (statement of witness identifying another person as killer); United States v.
if it speaks only to defendants credibility).
in an attempt to influence his testimony. United States v. OConner, 64 F.3d 355, 359-60 (8th Cir. 1995).
to disclose ongoing illegal drug use by cooperating witnesses).
1202 (9th Cir. 1988) (probation file listing instances of the witness lying to authorities); United States v.
Minsky, 963 F.2d 870, 875 (6th Cir. 1992) (error not to disclose witnesss false statements to FBI).
the states obligation to turn over all information bearing on that witnesss credibility). Benn v.
falsely accused defendant of murder).
witness showing tendency to lie or overcompensate).
279 (5th Cir. 1961) (same).
683 (1985) (failure to disclose that witnesses might have been biased against defendant).
v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) (evidence affecting credibility of witnesses is material).
reports of polygraph examination); United States v. Lynn, 856 F.2d 430, 432-34 (1st Cir. 1988).
arguably admitting that he committed the shooting for which the defendant was convicted); Sellers v.
statement of witness not mentioning presence or participation of defendant).
government witness as not truthful. United States v. Brumel-Alvarez, 991 F.2d 1452, 1458 (9th Cir. 1993).
when government witness gave exculpatory information for defendant).
(5th Cir. 1963) (psychologists report that defendant was incompetent to stand trial); United States v.
testimony of coconspirator which lessened amount of drugs attributable to the defendant).
Any evidence mitigating the punishment of the defendant. Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
that defendant did not have valid prior conviction which made him death eligible).
The commencement and termination date of the grand jury that indicted the defendant.
substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit jury); Fed.
The name of every prospective government witness to be called at trial. See Arizona v.
of witnesses); United States v. Armstrong, 621 F.2d 951, 954-55 (9th Cir. 1980) (same); United States v.
sides have the right to interview witnesses before trial).
others acting on the governments behalf).
federal government involved in any way in the case).
prosecutor did not disclose fact that witness would soon accept immunity offer).
its duty to disclose arguably favorable evidence. United States v. McClintock, 748 F.2d 1278, 1285 (9th Cir.
1984). Any doubt about the need to disclose such evidence must be resolved in favor of disclosure.
United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97, 108 (1976).
it was sharing the fruits of the police investigation.); United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 625 (9th Cir.
Disclosure is required even if, in the governments view, the evidence is not admissible at trial.
evidence that would give the jury a court a more complete basis for judging guilt or punishment).
is required to ask the court for an in camera review. See United States v. Scafe, 822 F.2d 928, 936 (10th Cir.
doubt for in camera review.).

References: v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

v. 
 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.