Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 105 Filed 02/22/23 Page 1 of 3
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`eneeeeeeeeennnnen x
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`:
`
`JAWAN MILLS
`
`ORDER
`
`-v-
`
`22 CR 522-13 (GHW)
`
`ceceeeenecnnnnnnnnnnnnnnx
`
`Defendant.
`
`VALERIE FIGUEREDO,United States Magistrate Judge:
`
`This Orderis 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), andits
`
`progeny, and to summarize the possible consequences of violating those obligations.
`
`The Government mustdisclose to the defense all information “favorable to an accused”
`
`that is “material either to guilt or to punishment” and that is known to the Government. Jd. 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 promptly after its existence becomes knownto the Governmentso
`
`that the defense may make effective use of the information in the preparation ofits case,
`
`Aspart of these obligations, the Government must disclose any information that can be
`
`used to impeachthetrial 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 disciosed
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 105 Filed 02/22/23 Page 2 of 3
`
`sufficiently in advanceoftrial in order for the defendant to make effective use ofit at trial or at
`
`such othertime 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 Government believes 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 orderall or part of the information otherwise subject to disclosure.*
`
`For purposes of this Order, the Government has an affirmative obligation to seekall
`
`information subject to disclosure under this Order from all current or former federal, state, and
`
`local prosecutors, law enforcementofficers, and otherofficers who have participated in the
`
`prosecution, or investigation that led to the prosecution, of the offense or offenses with which the
`
`defendant is charged.
`
`If the Governmentfails 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 ofthe
`Government’s disclosure obligations, or refer the matterto disciplinary authorities;
`
`' This Order does not purport to set forth an exhaustivelist of the Government’s disclosure obligations.
`? The Classified Information Procedures Act sets forth separate procedures to be followed in the event that the
`Government believes matters relating to classified information may arise in connection with the prosecution. See 18
`ULS.C. app. 3 §$ E ef seq.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`| |||
`
`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 105 Filed 02/22/23 Page 3 of 3
`
`(5) dismiss charges before trial or vacate a conviction aftertrial or a guilty plea; or
`
`(6) enter any other order that is just under the circumstances.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: 2/21/2023
`
`New York, New York
`
`
`VALERIEFIGUEREDO
`United States Magistrate 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.