United States v. Johnson

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. VALENTINO JOHNSON, Defendant.

Case No. 14-cr-00412-TEH

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

May 6, 2015

ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

This matter is before the Court on Defendant Valentino Johnson's motion to compel discovery. (Docket No. 106). The Government responded (Docket No. 108), and Defendant timely replied (Docket No. 110). The Court heard oral argument on May 4, 2015. After carefully considering the Parties' written and oral arguments, the Court hereby GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART Defendant's motion to compel discovery for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

As the Parties are familiar with the factual background of this case, the Court provides only a brief summary of the facts. On February 2, 2014, San Francisco Police Department ("SFPD") officers responded to a 911 call about a potential suicide at the residence of Luana McAlpine. Upon arrival, Officers Wise and Cader encountered McAlpine, the homeowner, and Defendant, who was on parole and appeared to be staying at the house. After performing a parole search of the home, the officers found a handgun and arrested Defendant for felon in possession of a firearm. The Government alleges that it has traced this gun to that used by Defendant's brother in a 2011 homicide, as well as a 2014 burglary involving a friend of Defendant's ex-girlfriend.

Defendant has been charged with two counts. Count One charges Defendant with being a felon in possession of a gun in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). On this count,the Government seeks an Armed Career Criminal Enhancement. Count Two charges Defendant with obstruction of justice for tampering with official proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2). The Court severed these counts to prevent prejudice from joinder. (Docket No. 111).

LEGAL STANDARD

The Government must disclose, upon a defendant's request, all "documents . . . if the item is within the government's possession, custody, or control and . . . the item is material to preparing the defense." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(E). The Advisory Committee's Notes explain that this rule was adopted "in the view that broad discovery contributes to the fair and efficient administration of criminal justice." Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 Advisory Committee's Notes (1974 Amendment).

"A defendant must make a threshold showing of materiality, which requires a presentation of facts which would tend to show that the Government is in possession of information helpful to the defense." United States v. Santiago, 46 F.3d 885, 894 (9th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks omitted). This showing requires a defendant to provide "specific facts, beyond allegations" to support a claim of materiality. Id. at 894-95. "Neither a general description of the information sought nor conclusory allegations of materiality suffice . . . ." United States v. Mandel, 914 F.2d 1215, 1219 (9th Cir. 1990).

Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit notes that it "behooves the Government to interpret the disclosure requirement broadly and turn over whatever evidence it has pertaining to the case." United States v. Hernandez-Meza, 720 F.3d 760, 768 (9th Cir. 2013). "Materiality is a low threshold; it is satisfied so long as the information [ ] would have helped [the defendant] prepare a defense." Id. (quotation marks omitted).

DISCUSSION

Defendant asks the Court to compel the discovery of three items: (1) the criminal history of Jakieth Martin; (2) a copy of allegedly racist text messages sent between SFPDofficers and disclosed by the Government in connection with United States v. Furminger; and (3) the personnel files of SFPD Officers Cader and Wise.

As a preliminary matter, neither Party disputes that the requested documents are in the possession of the Government, as required by Rule 16. Accordingly, the Court now addresses the materiality of each of these requested documents in turn.

I. The criminal history of Jakieth Martin

Defendant was charged with felon in possession of a firearm after SFPD officers discovered a firearm during a search of Luana McAlpine's residence, where Defendant had been staying the week prior to the search. Specifically, the firearm was found in a closet belonging to McAlpine's daughter. McAlpine has disclosed that her daughter's boyfriend, Jakieth Martin, "spends the night sometimes." Ex. N to Lin Decl. at Valentin-Johnson 000048 (Docket No. 106-15). As part of Defendant's case strategy, Defendant apparently intends to argue that the gun belonged to Martin instead of Defendant, and therefore requests Martin's criminal history.

The law provides that "[a] defendant is entitled to introduce evidence which tends to prove someone else committed the crime." United States v. Perkins, 937 F.2d 1397, 1400 (9th Cir. 1991). Defendant argues that Martin's criminal history is material to his defense because it might "indicate that [Martin] has been arrested for and convicted of firearm charges in the past. This evidence would be probative to show that Mr. Martin has knowledge of and access to firearms." Mot. at 4-5. Defendant continues: "Martin's criminal history may also show that previous crimes he was arrested for or convicted of involved a similar or even the same firearm as the one found in his girlfriend's room." Id. at 5. For support, Defendant cites to cases from the District of Massachusetts and District of Oregon where the Government was required to turn over, or otherwise faulted for not turning over, information concerning alternative suspects. Id. (citing Lopez v. Massachusetts, 349 F. Supp. 2d 109, 122 (D. Mass. 2004), and United States v. Weber, No.95-344-FR, 1996 WL 243454, at *3 (D. Or. May 9, 1996)).¹ Defendant further argues that even if Martin's criminal history turns out to be clean, it is material because it would allow Defendant to abandon this potential defense. Mot. at 5.

The Government responds that it should not be compelled to disclose Martin's criminal history because it is inadmissible under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) as improper character evidence. Opp'n at 3. The Government's argument is unavailing. Rule 16 does not require that the requested documents be admissible; rather, evidence is discoverable under Rule 16 "even if the evidence is not admissible so long as it is reasonably likely to lead to admissible evidence." United States v. Price, 566 F.3d 900, 913 n. 14 (9th Cir. 2009).

Moreover, Defendant correctly points out that Rule 404(b) is less restrictive when applied to a third party that a criminal defendant is trying to blame for the crime as part of his defense. Reply at 3 (citing United States v. Wright, 625 F.3d 583, 608 (9th Cir. 2010)). Courts "should indulge the accused when the defendant seeks to offer prior crimes evidence of a third party for an issue pertinent to the defense other than propensity." United States v. Cruz-Garcia, 344 F.3d 951, 955 (9th Cir. 2013) (quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant provides several examples of how he might use Martin's criminal history for something other than propensity. For example, Defendant might use Martin's criminal history to show that Martin had "knowledge of and access to a firearm like the one at issue in this case." Reply at 4. Or, Defendant offers, if Martin has a drug trafficking conviction near the time of the gun's discovery, Defendant might use this to show that Martin had the motive to possess a firearm. Id.

For these reasons, Defendant has made the requisite showing under Rule 16 that the Government is in possession of Jakieth Martin's criminal history and it would be helpful to his defense. The Court will therefore compel the document's disclosure.

II. Text messages from United States v. Furminger

Next, Defendant requests a copy of text messages from an unrelated case in this district, United States v. Furminger, Case No. 14-cr-102-CRB. Mot. at 6-7. In that case, the Government disclosed in a filing that a number of SFPD officers had traded text messages that revealed they were "virulent racist[s]." Ex. I to Lin Decl. at 3 (Docket No. 106-10). Defendant argues that the text messages reveal extreme racial bias on the part of the SFPD officers involved. Mot. at 6. For this reason, Defendant seeks all of the Furminger text messages to determine whether any of the officers involved in this or related cases are racially biased. Id.

Importantly, one of the officers involved in the text messages was Rain Daugherty, the officer that maintained the crime scene log for the 2011 homicide that the Government intends to use to connect Defendant to the gun. Ex. J to Lin Decl. (Docket No. 106-11). Defendant observes that according to SFPD General Order 6.01, the crime scene log is maintained by "the officer first entering the scene." Mot. at 6 (citing Ex. L to Lin Decl. (Docket No. 106-13)). Further, Defendant explains that it is this officer's duty to "isolate and protect the crime scene from contamination" and "insure that the potential evidence is protected." Id. (citing Ex. M to Lin Decl. (Docket No. 106-14)). Accordingly, Defendant argues that the text messages involving Daugherty are material to Defendant's defense because they show bias on the part of the officer that maintained the crime scene of a crime the Government intends to use to connect Defendant to the gun in this case. Id. at 6-7. Undercutting the legitimacy of the investigation into that murder, and therefore calling into doubt the connection between the gun purportedly used by Defendant's brother in that case and the gun allegedly belonging to Defendant in this one, is an obvious and legitimate defense strategy. That the Government does not plan to call Officer Daugherty to testify isirrelevant, as Defendant can call the officer as an adverse witness or potentially attack the 2011 murder investigation without Daugherty's presence at trial.

However, Defendant also seeks access to the Furminger text messages that do not include Rain Daugherty....