Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 373 Filed 09/12/13 Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Presently before the Court is the motion of Telly Hankton for
limited pre-authorization discovery (rec. doc. 286) and the motion
of Kevin Jackson for limited pre-authorization discovery. (Rec.
doc. 316). Following oral argument, the Government was ordered to
provide the Court with certain documentation for an in camera
inspection. (Rec. docs. 337, 339).
In response thereto, the Court was advised that no FBI 302
reports were generated as part of the New Orleans Police
Department's investigation into the Darnell Stewart homicide. The
Government further asserts that the New Orleans Police Department
was the lead investigative agency into this homicide and an un-
redacted NOPD homicide report was furnished to the Court for in
camera inspection to document the limited involvement of the FBI in
the Stewart homicide investigation.
Additionally, the Government furnished the Court with a copy
Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 373 Filed 09/12/13 Page 2 of 5
of its submission seeking a Petite Policy waiver in this matter.
Further, the Government advised that the U.S. Attorney's Office did
not correspond with the Orleans Parish District Attorney's Office
regarding its decision to charge Telly Hankton herein.
Additionally, the Government turned over the FBI 302 statement
of witness and/or witness(es) and certain grand jury testimony
which the Government strenuously objects to producing to defense
counsel for safety reasons.
The Government further advised that it issued a request to the
NOPD Public Integrity bureau to search Detective Pratt's personnel
files and other relevant files for potential Giglio material and
specifically for any complaints made against the detective for
suppressing exculpatory evidence in any cases. The documents
responsive to that request were likewise presented to the Court for
As to the un-redacted NOPD homicide report pertaining to the
Stewart homicide investigation, the Court sees no reason for this
document to be turned over at the present time. That document does
not indicate substantial involvement by the FBI in the
investigation as argued by defense counsel. The Court's ruling is
the same as to the request for Petite Policy waiver. This is
essentially a document covered by the work product privilege and
the Court sees no reason to over-ride that privilege at the present
Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 373 Filed 09/12/13 Page 3 of 5
As to the FBI 302 statement(s) and/or grand jury testimony
which the Court reviewed, suffice it to say that probable cause was
presented to justify the indictment of the defendants herein.
While counsel for Kevin Jackson argued in Court that his client
does not know why he has been charged, sufficient evidence was
presented to justify the grand jury in returning an indictment
based upon the information which the Court has reviewed.
However, the Court declines to turn that evidence over to the
defense at the present time in light of the Government's argument
pertaining to witness safety. Further, the Court sees nothing
which constitutes Brady material in the evidence reviewed by the
Court. Under Brady, the Government "has a duty to disclose
evidence favorable to the defense (either exculpatory or that which
could be used for impeachment) where such evidence is material
either to guilt or punishment". USA v. Delatorre, 438 F.Supp.2d
892, 901 (N.D. Ill. 2006), aff'd, 436 Fed.Appx. 639 (7th Cir. 2011),
cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 132 S.Ct. 1612 (2012). The Court
cannot categorize the information which was reviewed in camera as
favorable to the defense. And no jurisprudence has been furnished
to the Court which authorizes the disclosure of the Government's
witnesses at this stage of the proceedings.
The Court was also furnished with the results of the search
made by the Public Integrity Bureau of the New Orleans Police
Department as to complaints made against Detective Pratt. In
Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 373 Filed 09/12/13 Page 4 of 5
conversations with Ms. Privitera of the U.S. Attorney's Office, the
Court has reason to believe that defense counsel already has these
documents. However, if that is incorrect, the Court sees no reason
why same should not be furnished to counsel for the defense.
Lastly, the Court has reviewed a homicide police report and
other documents pertaining to the murder of Emmanuel Holmes and the
arrest of Selles Smallwood. Those documents are to be furnished to
defense counsel, after the Government has made redactions thereto.
If defense counsel is dissatisfied with the redactions, the Court
is to be immediately notified.
The aforementioned documents which the Court has ordered
turned over to defense counsel shall be provided to counsel on or
before September 16th.
In order that the record be complete and to insure that future
misunderstandings do not arise pertaining to the documents viewed
in camera by the Court, the Clerk is ordered to file under seal the
attached documents which the Court has reviewed.
Finally, the Court notes that, during oral argument, defense
counsel set forth certain arguments they wished to make in order to
address the issue with the Government as to whether the death
penalty is appropriate in these proceedings. As the Court
perceives it, there is nothing in the documents viewed by the Court
which prevents counsel from making the same arguments in the pre-
certification process to the Government that counsel made to the
Case 2:12-cr-00001-MLCF-ALC Document 373 Filed 09/12/13 Page 5 of 5
Court in oral argument.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this ___ day of September, 2013.
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ALMA L. CHASEZ