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.

United States v. Galloway

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

April 20, 2018

CORNELIUS GALLOWAY, et al., Defendants.


         THIS MATTER comes before the Court upon a hearing held on April 18, 2018 (“April 18th hearing”) on Defendants' Joint Motion to Compel Government to Produce Rule 16 and Brady-Giglio Materials, filed November 21, 2017 (Doc. 107).[1] In this motion, Defendants seek numerous categories of discovery material under Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(A) and (E); Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) and Giglio v. U.S., 405 U.S. 150, 153 (1972); and 18 U.S.C. §3500(a) (the Jencks Act, prohibiting a district court from ordering production of statements of witnesses the government intends to call at trial before they testify).

         Defendants seeks discovery in several categories, which will be addressed in turn.

         I. Oral Statements

         Defendants seek production of oral statements made by co-defendants to other co-defendants, including Defendants Woods, Taylor and Brown, and also Adrian Causey and Adrian Brown. The Government contends that Rule 16 requires disclosure of a defendant's oral statement, but it does not require disclosure of other defendants' statements. The Government also claims that these statements are not discoverable under the Jencks Act because the statements sought by Defendants are custodial, and any statements that do fall under the Jencks Act will be produced at a later date and closer to trial. Defendants point out that the March 8 statement of Xavier Stallworth was not a custodial statement and that this statement will assist in the preparation of the defense.

         To the extent that the statements sought by Defendants are co-conspirator statements, the Jencks Act controls. The Government is correct that the Jencks Act does not apply to statements made while in custody, as these would qualify as testimonial statements and the admission of such statements implicates a defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause. See Bruton v. U.S., 391 U.S. 123 (1968); U.S. v. Nash, 482 F.3d 1210 (10th Cir. 2007).[2]

         Under Rule 16, the Government must disclose to a defendant “the substance of any relevant oral statement made by the defendant . . . .” Rule 16(a)(1)(A). As the Government maintains, the rule does not require disclosure of statements of other defendants. Defendants' argument that these statements are material to preparing the defense does not apply under Rule 16, unless the information sought falls under the category of documents and objects. See Rule 16(a)(1)(E)(i).

         This request is granted and denied in part. Both the Jencks Act and Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are explicit in what disclosure is required. For these oral statements requested by Defendant: (1) the Government shall disclose any statements made by the requesting defendant under Rule 16; (2) the Government shall disclose any statements made by co-conspirators which it intends to use at trial, at a time which is closer to trial but far enough out in time so that a determination of admissibility may be made by the Court through a James hearing as to whether the statements are being presented as co-conspirator statements; and (3) the Government is not required to disclose any testimonial (or custodial) statements of co-conspirators, since such statements are not discoverable under the Jencks Act.

         II. Cellular Phone Data

         Defendants are requesting all data, including text messaging, call information, web browsing history, photos, videos, contact lists, emails and cell tower reports collected from cell phones belonging to not only the Galloways but all co-defendants and alleged victims named in the indictment. The Government is in the process of recovering information from six cell phones that are in disrepair, is awaiting analysis, and intends to turn over this discovery when received. This request is denied as moot at this time, subject to reconsideration should the need arise.

         III. Discovery Related to Overt Act of Homicides of Daryl Young and Tobi Stanfill

         Defendants seek all information related to the homicide of Daryl Young, one of the overt acts alleged in the Superseding Indictment, including crime scene photographs and forensic reports. At the April 18th hearing, Defendant specifically referred to requests for CAD and police reports, and in particular: (1) a “detective file” regarding the search warrant on the Woods' residence, Bates number 321491; (2) the Super 8 motel video taken prior to TS' homicide; (3) a more complete disclosure of all video surveillance from homes in the surrounding area with identifying information as to the homes from which the videos were taken; and (4) a video referred to on Tobi Stanfill's Facebook page indicating that she was scared of a certain individual, and which Defendants claim may be material to the identification of a potential alternate suspect.

         The Government is uncertain as to the existence of a separate “detective file” and contends that it is hearing of the other specific requests at the hearing for the first time. The Government represented to the Court that it will confer with Detective Jodi Gonterman from the Albuquerque Police Department (“APD”) to ascertain to what extent this material exists. The Government intends to disclose this information if it does exist.

         Defendants' request in this category is denied at this time, pending the Government's inquiry into whether this material exists, and subject to the Court's reconsideration should Defendant raise this issue at a later time.

         IV. Discovery Related to Sex Trafficking of Tobi Stanfill, ...

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.