United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
MALACHY E. MANNION United States District Judge.
the court is the pre-trial motion to compel discovery under
Fed.R.Crim.P. 16, (Doc. 26), filed by defendant Wayne
Davidson. Defendant seeks the court to issue an order
compelling the government to produce medical records and the
identities of alleged victim-witnesses in this case in which
it is charged that the use of the narcotics the defendant
allegedly distributed resulted in serious bodily injury. The
motion of defendant has been briefed. For the reasons set
forth below, the court will DENY the motion.
of relevant background, on December 14, 2017, defendant was
indicted and charged by a grand jury with two counts of
possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance,
in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1). In Count 1, it was
also alleged that the use of the narcotics distributed by the
defendant resulted in serious bodily injury.
April 12, 2018, the grand jury then indicted the defendant
and a co-defendant, Raymond Howard, in a Superseding
Indictment, and charged Davidson with four additional counts,
to wit: conspiracy to distribute controlled substances in
violation of 21 U.S.C. §846; and three additional counts
of possession with the intent to distribute a controlled
substance, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1). (Doc.
30). Further, two of the additional counts against Davidson
charge that the use of the narcotics he distributed resulted
in serious bodily injury.
Motion to Compel Medical Records of Victims Under Rule
U.S. v. Yawson, 2014 WL 3401663, *1 (W.D.Pa. July
10, 2014), the court stated:
Generally, governmental disclosure of evidence in criminal
cases is governed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
16(a). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit has recognized that discovery in criminal cases is
limited to those areas delineated in Rule 16(a)(1)
“with some additional material being discoverable in
accordance with statutory pronouncements and the due process
clause of the Constitution.” United States v.
Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 68 (3d Cir. 1994). As a general
matter, these other areas are limited to the Jencks Act and
materials available pursuant to the “Brady
16(a)(1) provides, in part, that a defendant is entitled to
“documents, objects, books, papers, photographs, etc.
that will be used during the government's case-in
chief” and “reports of examinations or
tests.” Insofar as defendant seeks the medical records
of the alleged victims, such a request falls more
specifically under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) which provides:
(E) Documents and Objects. 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 it its