The opinion of the court was delivered by: McCLURE, District Judge.
On March 8, 2000, a grand jury sitting in the Middle District
of Pennsylvania returned an indictment charging defendants David
M. Griggs and Eric Spencer Saunders with possession with intent
to distribute in excess of 50 grams of cocaine base (crack
cocaine), in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A)(iii).
Both defendants entered pleas of not guilty at arraignment on
March 29, 2000 (Griggs), and April 11, 2000 (Saunders). Jury
selection currently is scheduled for September 6, 2000.
Before the court is a motion by Saunders to compel discovery. A
pending motion by Saunders to suppress evidence will be addressed
by separate order, an evidentiary hearing on the motion having
been held August 11, 2000.
Because this is a criminal matter, of course, no record has
been created from which the court may recite established
facts.*fn1 The following facts are presented in the parties'
briefs and are set forth only for the purpose of placing the
legal discussion into context. Factual matters relating to the
issue of probable cause are omitted.
On February 29, 2000, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Corporal
Terrance Jankouskas of the Pennsylvania State Police was
patrolling Interstate Highway 80 in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.
He conducted a traffic stop of a vehicle driven by Saunders with
Griggs, the owner, in the passenger seat. After obtaining consent
to search the vehicle, Jankouskas found a quantity of crack
cocaine hidden in a hoagie*fn2 wrapper. Saunders and Griggs were
arrested and given their Miranda warnings. Saunders admitted to
driving Griggs to Philadelphia to get the crack and to being a
user himself. At the Hazleton State Police Barracks, Saunders
signed a written waiver of his Miranda rights, then gave a full
statement inculpating himself. According to the government, he
admitted to having transported crack for Griggs on previous
occasions and to knowing that the crack was in the vehicle on
On May 24, 2000, counsel for Saunders was given copies of the
relevant State Police report concerning the instant charges,
copies of a laboratory report showing that 82.8 grams of crack
was found, and the substance of all statements of the defendant.
The notes made by the interrogating officers were not provided,
II. DISCOVERY OF ITEMS SOUGHT
Saunders seeks three items or classes of items: a written
warning issued after the traffic stop by the arresting officer;
information relating to open case files and investigations which
are referenced in the police reports provided in discovery; and
handwritten notes of the interview of Saunders following his
The government indicates in its brief in opposition to the
motion to compel that the written warning relating to the traffic
stop has been provided, and, indeed, the same was presented as
the government's first exhibit at the suppression hearing. This
request is therefore moot.
Saunders cites no authority for the proposition that he is
entitled to discovery of investigative reports generally, and we
are aware of none. That request will be denied.
The government opposes disclosure of the rough notes of
interview because it already has provided a copy of a typewritten
version of the statement prepared from the rough ...