Opinion ID: 62783
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Post-trial Discovery Motion

Text: Prior to sentencing, defendants filed a motion to compel evidence and for depositions. Defendants attached to the motion a Honduran newspaper article that reported: (1) the vessel was captured during an operation between Honduran and United States naval forces; (2) one week before the capture, Honduran naval 5 commander Captain Jose Adam Martinez Avila obtained information about a drug shipment coming to Honduras by sea; (3) although Honduran naval commanders initially stated the vessel was stopped in Honduran waters, Inspector Miguel Martinez Madrid, a spokesman for the Honduran police, later stated the vessel was stopped in international waters; and (4) the contraband was loaded in Colombia (rather than on the high seas as codefendant Lituma testified). Defendants requested that “the government make inquiries of the Honduran and United States agents involved in investigating this case” and turn over as Brady2 material any information suggesting the boat was loaded in Colombia or the vessel was in Honduran waters when stopped by the Coast Guard.3 They also sought to depose Inspector Madrid and Captain Avila. At the sentencing hearing, the district court addressed defendants’ motion to compel. Defense counsel argued the government had failed to produce a “consent to board” document, which might indicate the location of the vessel when stopped and whether the United States had jurisdiction over the vessel. The prosecutor 2 Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963). 3 Defendants argued that if the vessel had been stopped in Honduran waters, for the vessel to be “subject to the jurisdiction of the United States,” the United States would have needed the consent of the Honduran, rather than the Panamanian, government. See 46 U.S.C. app. § 1903(c)(1)(E) (including in the definition of the term “vessel subject to the jurisdiction of the United States” a “vessel located in the territorial waters of another nation, where the nation consents to the enforcement of United States law by the United States”). 6 responded the government had turned over all documents it had regarding the location of the vessel. The prosecutor represented that, after the issue was raised in the pre-trial motions, she had conducted an “extensive investigation,” had “made inquiries of the special agents in the case and the Coast Guard” and had found no information or documents indicating the vessel was in Honduran waters. The district court noted the evidence at trial showed the vessel was in international waters and stated the newspaper article, which was hearsay, did not rebut that evidence. The district court further stated the government did not have a duty to investigate defendants’ claims and there was no evidence that the government had possession or control of exculpatory evidence. Consequently, the district court denied the motion to compel.