Case 1:22-cr-00192-JSR Document 14 Filed 03/31/22 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`-Y-
`
`ANDREW DONE,et al.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`22CR192 (JSR)
`
`ORDER
`
`Sarah L. Cave, United States Magistrate Judge:
`
`This Order is entered, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(f) and the Due
`
`Process Protections Act, Pub. L. No 116-182, 134 Stat. 894 (Oct. 21, 2020),
`
`to confirm the
`
`Government’s disclosure obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S, 83 (1963), and its progeny,
`
`and to summarize the possible consequences ofviolating those obligations.
`
`The Government mustdisclose to the defenseall information “favorable to an accused” that
`
`is “material either to guilt or to punishment” and that is known to the Government.
`
`fd. at 87. This
`
`obligation applies regardless of whether the defendant requests this information or whether the
`
`information would itself constitute admissible evidence. The Government shall disclose such
`information to the defense promptlyafterits existence becomes knownto the Governmentso that
`
`the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation ofits case.
`
`As part of these obligations, the Government must disclose any information that can be used
`
`to impeach the trial testimony of a Government witness within the meaning of Giglio v. United
`
`States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), and its progeny. Such information must be disclosed sufficiently in
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Case 1:22-cr-00192-JSR Document 14 Filed 03/31/22 Page 2 of 3
`
`advanceoftrial in order for the defendant to make effective use of it at trial or at such other time
`
`as the Court may order.!
`
`The foregoing obligations are continuing ones and apply to materials that become known to
`
`the Governmentin the future. These obligations also apply to information that is otherwise subject
`
`to disclosure regardless of whether the Governmentcreditsit.
`
`In the event the Governmentbelieves that a disclosure under this Order would compromise
`
`witness safety, victim rights, national security, a sensitive law-enforcement technique, or any other
`
`substantial government interest, it may apply to the Court for a modification of its obligations, which
`
`may include in camera review or withholding or subjecting to a protective order all or part of the
`
`information otherwise subject to disclosure.”
`
`For purposes of this Order, the Government has an affirmative obligation to seek ail
`
`information subject to disclosure under this Order from all current or formerfederal, state, and local
`
`prosecutors, law enforcementofficers, and other officers who have participated in the prosecution,
`
`or investigation that led to the prosecution, of the offense or offenses with which the defendantis
`
`charged.
`
`if the Government fails to comply with this Order, the Court,
`
`in addition to ordering
`
`production of the information, may:
`
`(1) specify the terms and conditions of such production;
`
`(2) grant a continuance;
`
`(3} impose evidentiary sanctions;
`
`{4} impose contempt or other sanctions on any lawyer responsible for violations of the
`
`1 This Order does not purport to set forth an exhaustive list of the Government’s disclosure obligations.
`2 The Classified Information Procedures Act sets forth separate procedures to be followed in the event that the
`Governmentbelieves matters relating to classified information may arise in connection with the prosecution. See 18
`U.S.C. app. 3 §§ 1 et seq.
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00192-JSR Document 14 Filed 03/31/22 Page 3of3
`
`Government’s disclosure obligations, or refer the matter to disciplinary authorities;
`
`(S) dismiss charges beforetrial or vacate a conviction after trial or a guilty plea; or
`
`(6) enter any other orderthatis just under the circumstances.
`
`SO ORDERED. Dated:
`
`March 31, 2022
`New York, New York
`
`p
`Hyonte
`United statés hagistrate Judge
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.