Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

defendantdiscoveryappealtrialcriminal procedurejury trialpiracy
defendantdiscoveryappealtrialtestimonydirect evidencecriminal procedureappellantpiracy

Related Cases

U.S. v. Safavian, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 3378479
View Case »
Security National Bank of Sioux City, IA v. Jones Day, 800 F.3d 936, 92 Fed.R.Serv.3d 689
View Case »
Horaist v. Doctor’s Hosp. of Opelousas, 255 F.3d 261
View Case »
Evans v. Jeff D., 475 U.S. 717, 106 S.Ct. 1531, 89 L.Ed.2d 747, 40 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 860, 40 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 36,087, 54 USLW 4359, 4 Fed.R.Serv.3d 321
View Case »
Quintel Corp. v. Citibank, N.A., Not Reported in F.Supp., 1983 WL 2157
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Monsanto Lopez, 798 Fed.Appx. 688

Facts

Roberto Arce was convicted following a jury trial for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. The government produced additional discovery materials shortly before the trial, which led Arce to seek suppression of the evidence or a continuance. The district court granted a three-week continuance for the defense to review the new evidence, which Arce's counsel did not object to. During the trial, the government presented various pieces of evidence linking Arce to the drug conspiracy.

Appellant contends that all the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to sustain his conviction, challenging the direct evidence against him as not indicative of his involvement in a drug conspiracy and the testimony of cooperating witnesses tying him to the conspiracy as 'unbelievable.'

Issue

Did the government violate Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by belatedly producing certain materials, and was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to sustain Arce's conviction?

Appellant argues that the Government violated Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by belatedly producing certain materials and that the district court's ruling that some of these materials could be entered into evidence at trial was error, warranting reversal of his conviction.

Rule

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) requires the government to permit the defendant to inspect and copy certain materials upon request. The court may grant a continuance to remedy a Rule 16 violation as long as it did not cause the defendant substantial prejudice.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(1)(E) provides that: Upon a defendant's request, the government must permit the defendant to inspect and to copy or photograph books, papers, documents, data, photographs, tangible objects, buildings or places, or copies or portions of any of these items, if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and: (i) the item is material to preparing the defense; (ii) the government intends to use the item in its case-in-chief at trial; or (iii) the item was obtained from or belongs to the defendant.

Analysis

The court found that there was no violation of Rule 16 because the government had disclosed the existence of the evidence and made it available for inspection prior to trial. The additional materials were produced shortly before trial, but the defense had over a month to review them and did not object to the continuance. Even if there had been a violation, the court determined that the continuance was an appropriate remedy and did not cause substantial prejudice to Arce.

We do not find a violation of Rule 16. Rule 16 requires that the Government 'permit the defendant to inspect and to copy' certain materials '[u]pon a defendant's request.' The plain language of the Rule does not require the Government to produce these materials absent a defendant's request. Here, in October 2016, the Government disclosed the existence of the evidence in its possession and made the evidence available for inspection. As it gathered additional evidence shortly before trial, that evidence was promptly produced to defense counsel.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's judgment, concluding that the government did not violate discovery rules and that there was sufficient evidence to support Arce's conviction.

We hereby AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Who won?

The government prevailed in the case because the court found no violation of discovery rules and sufficient evidence to support the conviction.

The Court of Appeals held that: 1 government's production of additional documents for discovery shortly before trial was scheduled to begin did not violate the rule governing discovery and inspection of documents by the government; 2 district court acted within its discretion by granting a continuance for defense counsel to review the new evidence rather than excluding the evidence; and 3 evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine.

You must be