The opinion of the court was delivered by: M. Munley Judge James M. Munley United States District Court
Before the court are various motions filed by the defendant. Having been fully briefed, they are ripe for disposition.
On September 29, 2009, a grand jury sitting in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania returned an indictment naming Defendant Calvin Driver on four counts. Count I accuses the defendant of engaging in a conspiracy to assault a fellow inmate at the United States Penitentiary in Canaan, Pennsylvania and to assault and interfere with the work of Correctional Officers employed by the United States Bureau of Prisons who were attempting to break up the alleged attack. Count II charges defendant with assault with a deadly weapon. Count III alleges that defendant intentionally assaulted, resisted, opposed, impeded, intimidated and interfered with correctional officers. Count IV contends that defendant knowingly possessed the weapons used in the assault, a lock tied in a sheet and a homemade knife.
Defendant filed the instant motions in preparation of the pre-trial conference. The government then responded to those motions, bringing the case to its present posture.
The court will address each motion filed by the defendant in turn.
i. Notice of Government's Intention to Rely on Other Crimes, Wrongs, Acts and Misconduct Evidence
Defendant seeks an order from the court directing the government to give pre-trial notice of its intention to introduce evidence alleging that the defendant has committed other crimes, wrongs, acts and misconduct pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b). The defendant also seeks a list of all such evidence, including the names of witnesses, the dates of the events' occurrences, summaries of expected testimony, and any related documentary evidence. The government responds that it does have any reason to offer such evidence, but reserves the right to introduce such information if Driver's defense makes that information relevant. In that instance, the government agrees to provide the information as required by the federal rules.
Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) provides that "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show action in conformity therewith." FED. R. EVID. 404(b). Such evidence, however, "may . . . be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident[.]" Id. "[U]pon request of the accused, the prosecution in a criminal case shall provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . of the general nature of any such evidence it intends to introduce at trial." Id.
The government has complied with the requirements of the rule, indicating that such evidence will not appear in the case-in-chief against the defendant. The adequacy of the notice provided to defendant if events at trial cause the government to introduce such evidence can be raised at an appropriate time. The court will therefore deny the motion as moot without prejudice to the defendant re-raising the issue at an appropriate time.
The defendant seeks disclosure of all material covered by the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 26.2. (Doc. 45). Defendant seeks this material fifteen days before trial. The government responds that defendant has already received all of the required material, and promises to provide defense ...