Untimely Discovery Evidence Draws Defendants Objections
Stewart, Drexler, and Parker challenge Government’s last minute submission.
On January 25th, 2017, less than two weeks before trial, the Government submitted an extra 5+ gigabytes of discovery evidence. Appropriately, Stewart, Parker, and Drexler motioned to preclude this evidence for trial for several reasons. First, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (FRCP) mandate timely dissemination of discovery evidence. Second, the Government routinely vocalizes opposition to any motion made by defendants if it does not follow strict rules of timeliness. It follows that untimely discovery evidence draws defendants objections.
Deadlines set in April, 2016
On April 26th, 2017 Magistrate Judge Peggy Leen ordered (ECF No. 321) the submission of general discovery evidence to happen no later than May 6th, 2017; a full nine months before trial. This deadline did not apply to special evidence known as Jenks and Giglio material. Discovery evidence provides defendants an opportunity to know, understand, and prepare for what the Government intends to assert before a jury. It took the Government almost 700 days to get around to indicting and arresting Bundy Ranch Protest defendants. In addition, the deadline for discovery evidence gave the Government an additional two months time. Essentially, the Government had over two years to build this case; one has to wonder what could possibly surface 12 days before trial.
What’s good for the goose…
Given the Government’s persistent opposition to any motion filed outside of deadlines set by the court, this latest dissemination of evidence further manifests the Government’s near-predictable wanton disregard for the fair and equitable metering of justice. Technically, according to FRCP, prompt disclosure of discovery evidence is the standing requirement. However, the Court retains broad discretion when it comes to discovery evidence. As an example, the strict protective order on all evidence is a direct result of the Court’s broad discretion in matters of discovery. Consequently, the Court has the ability to preclude this evidence and thereby block its admissibility. Such an action would be consistent with the Government’s track record of opposing everything that falls outside of strict deadlines set by the court.
Untimely Discovery Evidence Draws Defendants Objections
The fruit of the tree of justice is putrid and poisonous to the blessings of liberty. It is rotten from the tip of the longest root to the end of the longest branch. It is doubtful that defendants expect any motion to gain traction with plausible efficacy as it relates to the first Bundy Ranch Protest trial. At this point, motions serve only as hedge bets in the event that the outcome has to go to the 9th Circuit for appeal. The Court will allow the Government to submit whatever it wants as evidence, even if untimely discovery evidence draws defendants objections. Conversely, we can expect the Court to limit and restrict defendants; this was a HUGE issue in Oregon at the Malheur Refuge Occupation trial.
