Opinion
Criminal Action No. 02-62-1(JJF)
July 23, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Bruce Stewart's Motion for Additional Discovery (D.I. 78). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.
By his Motion, Defendant seeks a broad range of discovery materials from the Government. (D.I. 78, ¶¶ 4-7). Defendant makes the request because he "assumes there must be a great deal more discovery. . . ."Id. at ¶ 4.
In response, the Government points out that Defendant's requests exceed the scope of what is required to be produced under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 ("Rule 16") and 18 U.S.C. § 3500. The Government contends that it has fully complied with its obligations under Rule 16 by producing over 1,000 pages of documents to Defendant.
Based on the record before it, the Court concludes that Defendant has not established that he is entitled to additional discovery. To the extent that Defendant's requests fall within the parameters of Rule 16, the Government represents, with full knowledge of its continuing duty to disclose and the possible sanctions for failure to comply, that it has satisfied its obligations under Rule 16. Defendant has made no showing that would call the Government's representation into question. For these reasons, the Court will deny Defendant's Motion.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23 date of July 2003, that Defendant's Motion for Additional Discovery (D.I. 78) is DENIED.
ORDER
WHEREAS, currently pending is Defendant, Bruce Stewart's Motion to Disqualify Counsel of Co-Defendant (D.I. 80);
WHEREAS, the Co-Defendant at issue, Tina Johnson, has been appointed new counsel in this matter;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23 day of July 2003, that Bruce Stewart's Motion to Disqualify Counsel of Co-Defendant (D.I. 80) isDENIED as moot.
ORDER
WHEREAS, currently pending before the Court are Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents (D.I. 125) and the City of Wilmington's Motion to Quash the Defendant's Subpoena Pursuant to Rule 17(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (D.I. 128);
WHEREAS, due to the sensitive nature of the documents at issue, specifically a Police Personnel file, the Court conducted an in camera review;
WHEREAS, after reviewing the documents that are the subject of the subpoena, the Court finds that they are irrelevant to the Defendant's case and do not bear upon the Officer's credibility as a potential witness. Therefore, the Court concludes that the confidentiality of the Officer's Personnel file shall remain intact;
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23 day of July, 2003, that:
1) The Defendant's Motion to Compel Documents (D.I. 125) is DENIED ;
2) the City of Wilmington's Motion to Quash the Defendant's Subpoena Pursuant to Rule 17(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (D.I. 128) is GRANTED.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Currently pending before the Court is Defendant's application to proceed as co-counsel in his own defense. For the reasons discussed, Defendant's application will be denied.
Whether a Defendant may participate as co-counsel in his own defense is a matter addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court absent a showing of special circumstances. See United States v. Lang. 527 F.2d 1264, 1265 (4th Cir. 1975) (noting that absent some special need it was not error to deny Defendant's request to proceed as co-counsel). The right to appear pro se and the right to counsel are disjunctive. In other words, a defendant may represent himself or be represented through an attorney, but there is no right to simultaneous "hybrid" representation. See, e.g., United States v. Swinney, 970 F.2d 494, 498 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied. 506 U.S. 1011, 113 S.Ct. 632, 121 L.Ed.2d 563 (1992) (noting that there is no constitutional right to hybrid representation and that such a determination is left to the discretion of the court); Hall v. Dorsey, 534 F. Supp. 507, 508 (E.D. Pa. 1982) (noting that there is no right to proceed pro se and with counsel at the same time); Ahmad Abdul Jabbar-Al-Samad v. Zimmerman. 1987 WL 26583 at *4 (E.D. Pa. December 4, 1987) (stating that courts have been nearly unanimous in holding that "while a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to proceed pro se, there is no right to proceed pro se and with counsel at the same time.").
In this case, the Court concludes that there are no circumstances which warrant hybrid representation. Defense Counsel has been diligent in Mr. Stewart's interests, and the Court finds no reason for the Defendant to act as co-counsel. Therefore, Defendant's application to act as co-counsel will be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this day of July 2003, that Defendant's application to act as co-counsel is
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendant Bruce Stewart's Request For a Bill Of Particulars (D.I. 79). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will deny the Motion.Defendant moves, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f)("Rule 7(f)"), to have the Government set forth "in detail all dates and times the Defendant is alleged to have been involved in misconduct and places and locations." (D.I. 79 at ¶ 2). Defendant contends that "[f]rom the discovery provided so far, there does not appear to be specific dates and times nor is it clear what the Defendant is alleged to have done and when." Id. at ¶ 3.
In response, the Government contends that Defendant's request should be denied because the indictment in this case provides sufficient detail to inform Defendant of the nature of the charges and to allow him to prepare his defense. The Government points out that the indictment describes the alleged conduct and provides specific dates as to Counts II through X. Only the conspiracy count (Count I) alleges the offense occurred over an extended period of time, and that Count is phrased in language nearly identical to a charge found to be sufficiently specific by this Court inUnited States v. Almodovar, 1996 WL 700267 (D. Del. Nov. 26, 1996). The Government contends that Defendant is improperly attempting to use a bill of particulars as a discovery device. Finally, the Government contends that 1,000 pages of discovery documents produced to Defendant have provided him with sufficient detail to prepare his defense.
Under Rule 7(f), the decision to grant a request for a bill of particulars is within the discretion of the Court. Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(f)("The court may direct the government to file a bill of particulars."). The Third Circuit has explained that "[a] bill of particulars, unlike discovery, is not intended to provide the defendant with the fruits of the government's investigation. Rather, it is intended to give the defendant only that minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation." United States v. Smith, 76 F.2d 1104, 1111 (3d Cir. 1985) (internal citations omitted).
In the instant case, the Court concludes that a bill of particulars is unnecessary because the indictment provides the "minimum amount of information necessary to permit the defendant to conduct his own investigation." Smith. 776 F.2d at 1111. In addition to a sufficiently specific indictment, the Government has provided Defendant with over 1,000 pages of documents and in the Court's view, this discovery and the Indictment are sufficient to inform Defendant of the charges alleged by the Government and to permit him to prepare his defense. For these reasons, the Court will deny Defendant's Request for a Bill of Particulars.
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 23 day of July 2003, that Defendant's Request For a Bill Of Particulars (D.I. 79) is DENIED.