Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 568 Filed 10/29/24 Page 1 of 4
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`-against-
`
`X
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
` Defendant.
`X
`------------------------------------------------------------
`GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
`
`ALVIN EUSEBIO,
`a/k/a “Goo,”
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC #: _________________
`DATE FILED: 10/29/24
`
`1:22-cr-522-GHW
`
`ORDER
`
`On October 28, 2024, the Government submitted a proposed order regarding procedures
`
`for defense counsel queries relating to undercover officers. Dkt. No. 564. The Court understands
`
`that while Mr. Eusebio preserves his objection to the process, neither he nor any other Defendant
`
`provided comments regarding the Government’s proposed procedures prior to the October 28,
`
`2024 submission. Nonetheless, the Court has drafted revisions designed to safeguard the
`
`information that defense counsel may provide to the investigator responsible for compliance with
`
`the order.
`
`To the extent that any party has objections to the proposed order, counsel may provide
`
`comments no later than October 30, 2024 at 5:00 p.m. If the Court does not receive objections
`
`by that time, the Court will understand that there are none.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: October 29, 2024
`New York, New York
`
`__________________________________
`GREGORY H. WOODS
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 568 Filed 10/29/24 Page 2 of 4
`
`DRAFT—October 29, 2024
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC #: _________________
`DATE FILED: 10/29/24
`
`1:22-cr-522-GHW-5
`
`ORDER
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
`-against-
`
`ALVIN EUSEBIO,
` a/k/a “Goo,”
`
`Defendant.
`------------------------------------------------------------
`
`X
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`X
`
`GREGORY H. WOODS, United States District Judge:
`
`Upon the application of the United States of America, the Court hereby finds and orders as
`
`follows:
`
`WHEREAS the Government has submitted a motion requesting, among other things, that
`
`the Court enter an order allowing two active undercover officers (the “Undercover Officers”) to
`
`testify at trial without the Government disclosing their true names to the defense in advance of trial;
`
`WHEREAS the Government’s interests in maintaining the continued effectiveness and
`
`safety of undercover officers, including the Undercover Officers, is an extremely substantial interest,
`
`which would be seriously prejudiced by requiring disclosure of the Undercover Officers’ true names;
`
`WHEREAS the Government has demonstrated that the safety of the Undercover Officers
`
`and the integrity of their work would be jeopardized if their true identities were disclosed in advance
`
`their trial testimony;
`
`WHEREAS the information pertaining to the Undercover Officers are records or
`
`information compiled for law enforcement purposes;
`
`WHEREAS there exist alternative means of adequately ensuring the defendant’s right to
`
`cross-examine the Undercover Officers through, among other things, impeachment material, while
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 568 Filed 10/29/24 Page 3 of 4
`
`balancing that right against the Government’s extremely substantial interests set forth above;
`
`FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
`
`1.
`
`1.
`
`The New York City Police Department (“NYPD”) shall disclose the true
`
`names of the Undercover Officers to the Special Agent in Charge (the “SAC”) of the United States
`
`Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York (“SDNY”). After having received the true names
`
`of the Undercover Officers, the SAC shall disclose the names to an SDNY investigator (the
`
`“Investigator”) assigned to the USAO who will be responsible for conducting queries on behalf of
`
`the defense. The SAC shall not disclose the name of the Investigator to the prosecution team.
`
`2.
`
`Defense counsel shallmay communicate directly with the Investigator to request that
`
`a particular query be conducted by the Investigator, including that query’s scope and other such
`
`details of its execution. The Investigator shall conduct any such query promptly. The Investigator
`
`shall not communicate with any person other than the prosecution teamrequesting defendant’s
`
`counsel regarding any topic related to the above-captioned matter, to include by informing the
`
`prosecution team of the the nature or results of the queries requested by the defense, including,
`
`without limitation, any other employee or representative of the U.S. Department of Justice.
`
`3.
`
`If requested by defense counsel, the Investigator shall be required to receive and
`
`respond to all queries only in paper form or orally. The Investigator shall not save any information
`
`related to the queries—including but not limited to the queries themselves, related notes, or their
`
`results (collectively, the “Request Documentation”)—on the government’s electronic systems. The
`
`Investigator shall return the Request Documentation to the requesting defense counsel within two
`
`business days after the earlier of (1) the completion of his or her response to any query or (2) a
`
`request by defense counsel.
`
`
`
`SO ORDERED:.
`
`Dated:
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:22-cr-00522-GHW Document 568 Filed 10/29/24 Page 4 of 4
`
`New York, New York
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`__________________________________
`
`GREGORY H. WOODS
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

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.

We are unable to display this document.

Connectivity issues with tsdrapi.uspto.gov. Try again now (HTTP Error 429: ).

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket