Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


September 29, 2005.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: JOHN HOUSTON, Magistrate Judge

On August 11, 2005, at approximately 9:00 a.m., Mr. Munoz was apprehended driving a 1985 Ford Ranger. Also in the car was a passenger — the co-defendant and registered owner of the vehicle, Angel Javier Quintero-Camacho.

  In primary inspection, a narcotics detector dog alerted to the vehicle and it was referred to secondary inspection. After being referred to secondary inspection, Officer Smura interrogated Mr. Munoz while Officer Maeda interrogated Mr. Quintero. The officers escorted each of them to the secondary office. An inspection of the vehicle revealed 105.94 kilograms of marijuana. Mr. Munoz was read his rights and made statements. He denied knowledge of the marijuana. Mr. Quintero also made statements, however he admitted knowledge of the marijuana and implicated Mr. Munoz as to knowledge as well.

  On August 25, 2005, the "June 2005 Grand Jury" sitting in the Southern District of California returned an Indictment charging Mr. Munoz with importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960; and possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and with importation of methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960.



  Mr. Munoz moves for the production of the following discovery and for the preservation of all relevant evidence. This request is not limited to those items that the prosecutor knows of, but rather includes all discovery listed below that is in the custody, control, care, or knowledge of any "closely related investigative [or other] agencies." See United States v. Bryan, 868 F.2d 1032 (9th Cir. 1989).

  (1) The Defendant's Statements. The government must disclose to the defendant all copies of any written or recorded statements made by the defendant; the substance of any statements made by the defendant which the government intends to offer in evidence at trial; any response by the defendant to interrogation; the substance of any oral statements which the government intends to introduce at trial and any written summaries of the defendant's oral statements contained in the handwritten notes of the government agent; any response to any Miranda warnings which may have been given to the defendant; as well as any other statements by the defendant. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A). The Advisory Committee Notes and the 1991 amendments to Rule 16 make clear that the Government must reveal all the defendant's statements, whether oral or written, regardless of whether the government intends to make any use of those statements.

  (2) Arrest Reports, Notes and Dispatch Tapes. The defendant also specifically requests the government to turn over all arrest reports, notes, dispatch or any other tapes, and TECS records that relate to the circumstances surrounding his arrest or any questioning. This request includes, but is not limited to, any rough notes, records, reports, transcripts or other documents in which statements of the defendant or any other discoverable material is contained. Such material is discoverable under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A) and Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The government must produce arrest reports, investigator's notes, memos from arresting officers, dispatch tapes, sworn statements, and prosecution reports pertaining to the defendant. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(B) and (C), Fed.R.Crim.P. 26.2 and 12(1).

  (3) Brady Material. The defendant requests all documents, statements, agents' reports, and tangible evidence favorable to the defendant on the issue of guilt and/or which affects the credibility of the government's case. Under Brady, impeachment as well as exculpatory evidence falls within the definition of evidence favorable to the accused. United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667 (1985); United States v. Agurs, 427 U.S. 97 (1976).

  (4) Any Information That May Result in a Lower Sentence Under The Guidelines. The government must produce this information under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963).

  (5) The Defendant's Prior Record. The defendant requests disclosure of his prior record. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(B).

  (6) Any Proposed 404(b) Evidence. The government must produce evidence of prior similar acts under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C) and Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) and 609. In addition, under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), "upon request of the accused, the prosecution . . . all provide reasonable notice in advance of trial . . . the general nature" of any evidence the government proposes to introduce under Fed.R.Evid. 404(b) at trial. The defendant requests such notice two weeks before trial in order to give the defense time adequately to investigate and prepare for trial.

  (7) Evidence Seized. The defendant requests production of evidence seized as a result of any search, either warrantless or with a warrant. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C).

  (8) Request for Preservation of Evidence. The defendant specifically requests the preservation of all dispatch tapes or any other physical evidence that may be destroyed, lost, or otherwise put out of the possession, custody, or care of the government and which relate to the arrest or the events leading to the arrest in this case. This request includes, but is not limited to, any samples of narcotics used to run any scientific tests, any narcotics, the results of any fingerprint analysis, the vehicle which the defendant drove, the defendant's personal effects, and any evidence seized from the defendant or any third party. In addition, Mr. Munoz requests that the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case oversee a review of all personnel files of each agent involved in the present case for impeachment material. Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419 (1995); United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 (9th Cir. 1991); but see United States v. Herring, 83 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 1996).

  (9) Tangible Objects. The defendant requests the opportunity to inspect and copy as well as test, if necessary, all other documents and tangible objects, including photographs, books, papers, documents, alleged narcotics, fingerprint analyses, vehicles, or copies of portions thereof, which are material to the defense or intended for use in the government's case-in-chief or were obtained from or belong to the defendant. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(C). ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.