United States v. Wilson

518 F.Supp.3d 678

UNITED STATES of America,

v.Deandre WILSON a/k/a D, Defendant.

1:19-CR-00155 EAW

United States District Court, W.D. New York.

Signed February 10, 2021

Brendan T. Cullinane, U.S. Attorney's Office, Buffalo, NY, for United States of America.

DECISION AND ORDER

ELIZABETH A. WOLFORD, United States District Judge

INTRODUCTION

Defendant Deandre Wilson a/k/a D ("Wilson") stands accused by way of a Second Superseding Indictment ("SSI") returned on August 26, 2020, with among other crimes, murder while engaged in a narcotics conspiracy in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 848(e)(1)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (Count 10), and discharge of a firearm causing death in furtherance of a crime of violence and drug trafficking crimes in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 924(c)(1)(A)(iii), 924(j)(1), and 2 (Counts 12 and 13), related to the alleged intentional killing of Miguel Anthony Valentin-Colon, Nicole Marie Merced-Plaud, and Dhamyl Roman-Audiffred, on or about September 15, 2019. (Dkt. 106). Based on these counts, the SSI contains special findings pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3591 and 3592 with respect to a potential sentence of death. (Id. at 18-20).¹

Pending before the Court is a motion filed by Wilson asking that the Court set a case management schedule with respect to a meeting with the Capital Review Committee of the Department of Justice ("DOJ") and further order the government to produce "pre-authorization" discovery. (Dkt. 170). The Court previously issued a Text Order granting some of the requested relief, denying some of the requested relief, and otherwise reserving decision. (Dkt. 178). This Decision and Order now addresses the motion in further detail, and for the reasons outlined herein, the motion is granted in part and denied in part.

BACKGROUND

Wilson filed the pending motion on December 21, 2020. (Dkt. 170). As outlined in that motion, the government initially proposed that Wilson's counsel meet with the DOJ Capital Review Committee in November or December 2020, and Wilson's counsel responded by requesting a ten-to-twelve month period "to allow us to learn, research, and investigate our case, including the critical mitigation investigation." (Id. at 3). The government responded by scheduling the meeting for January 25, 2021. (Id. ). Wilson's counsel contends that this schedule is not practical for them to effectively investigate and prepare "an informed proffer to the Government in order to persuade it not to seek [their client's] execution." (Id. at 4). As a result, Wilson seeks the Court's intervention to set a "case management schedule that would allow the defense to attend the conference with the Committee in July, 2021 or later." (Id. at 11). The government opposes Wilson's request essentially on the basis that it is beyond this Court's authority to intervene in the scheduling of this meeting with the DOJ. (Dkt. 172 at 4-10).

In addition to seeking the Court's intervention with respect to the DOJ meeting, Wilson also seeks an order from the Court requiring that the government produce "pre-authorization" discovery. (Dkt. 170 at 11-20). Wilson describes the information sought as relevant to mitigating circumstances in connection with any decision in this case regarding the death penalty, and specifically seeks the following:

(1) criminal history and background information concerning the victims (Miguel Anthony Valentin-Colon, Nicole Marie Merced-Plaud and Dhamyl Roman-Audiffred), including whether they were associated with any drug organizations and any investigatory information concerning any such organization;

(2) the identity of witnesses, including cooperating witnesses and any witness who has implicated Wilson in the murders, and their criminal history and other background information;

(3) information concerning any equally culpable individuals;

(4) information in the government's possession, custody or control that "might be favorable, or mitigating, on the issue of whether the death penalty should be sought or imposed"; and,

(5) statements of any alleged co-conspirators.

(Id. at 17-20; Dkt. 177 at 4-5). Wilson's counsel seeks the information on the basis that it is "highly relevant to our ability to make meaningful arguments to the [DOJ Capital Review Committee] against the death penalty and is therefore far from ‘premature.’ " (Dkt. 170 at 12).

As with the request for the Court's intervention concerning the scheduling of the DOJ meeting, the government also opposed Wilson's request for pre-authorization discovery. (Dkt. 172 at 10-18). Oral argument was held before the undersigned on January 11, 2021. (Dkt. 174). Based on questions raised during that oral argument concerning pre-authorization discovery, the Court permitted the government to submit supplemental briefing (Dkt. 176) to which Wilson responded (Dkt. 177). Thereafter, the Court issued its Text Order on January 20, 2021, granting some of the relief requested by Wilson, denying some of the relief, and otherwise reserving decision. (Dkt. 178).

REQUEST FOR COURT TO REGULATE TIMING OF DOJ MEETING

As the Court suggested during the oral argument of this matter (Dkt. 175 at 15-18), and as confirmed by the Court's Text Order (Dkt. 178), the government's insistence on moving forward with the current schedule of the DOJ meeting does not represent an efficient use of time and resources given the change in administration of the executive branch. However, the Court also does not believe it is an appropriate exercise of judicial authority to become involved in the scheduling of a meeting that will impact a charging decision by the government. This conclusion is consistent with the vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue. See , e.g. , United States v. Crusius , EP-20-CR-00389-DCG, 2020 WL 4340550, at *4 (W.D. Tex. July 28, 2020) (while recognizing the challenges in preparing mitigation evidence in the face of COVID-19 pandemic, nonetheless concluding that the court lacked "the authority to grant Defendant the relief he seeks because the pre-authorization mitigation presentation is not a judicial proceeding presided over by a judge, but part of an ‘administrative, discretionary decision-making process of whether to seek the death penalty’ "); United States v. Slone , 969 F. Supp. 2d 830, 833 (E.D. Ky. 2013) (denying motion to set schedule for presentation of mitigating evidence to federal prosecutors because "[t]he Court does not have the authority to manage the DOJ's internal processes"); United States v. Tsarnaev , Criminal Action No. 13-10200-GAO, 2013 WL 5701582, at *1 (D. Mass. Oct. 18, 2013) ("The opportunity extended by the protocol to the defendant to submit information and materials for consideration in the Department's internal deliberations does not create a legal right that can be overseen and enforced by the Court."); United States v. Hardrick , Criminal Action No. 10-202, 2011 WL 2516340, at *2 (E.D. La. June 22, 2011) (concluding that court lacked authority to order DOJ to extend deadline set for defense presentation of evidence to the Capital Case Review Committee); United States v. Cisneros , Criminal No. 01-1709 MCA, 2002 WL 35649521, at *1 (D.N.M. Dec. 10, 2002) (declining to intervene in deadlines set by government with respect to death penalty review because "the death-eligible Defendants lack any judicially enforceable substantive or procedural rights with respect [to] the Government's exercise of prosecutorial discretion under the Justice Department's internal death-penalty protocol").

In support of his motion, Wilson relies on the decision in United States v. McGill , No. 09CR2856-IEG, 2010 WL 1571200 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2010) where the court granted, in part, the defendant's motion for a scheduling order pertaining to the government's consideration of whether to pursue the death penalty. The Court has reviewed and considered that decision, but respectfully disagrees with its conclusion. Accordingly, Wilson's motion for the issuance of a case management order regulating the timing of the meeting with the DOJ Capital Review Committee is denied.

REQUEST FOR "PRE-AUTHORIZATION" DISCOVERY

In support of his request for "pre-authorization" discovery² to help assist with the presentation of mitigation evidence to the DOJ Capital Review Committee, Wilson relies on Brady v. Maryland , 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963) and its progeny, which of course stand for the principle that the prosecutor's suppression of "evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution." 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194. The protections afforded by Brady are aimed at affording a defendant a fair trial. United States v. Bagley , 473 U.S. 667, 678, 105 S.Ct. 3375, 87 L.Ed.2d 481 (1985) ("suppression of evidence amounts to a constitutional violation only if it deprives the defendant of a fair trial"); United States v. Agurs , 427 U.S. 97, 108, 96 S.Ct. 2392, 49 L.Ed.2d 342 (1976) ("the prosecutor will not have violated his constitutional duty of disclosure unless his omission is of sufficient significance to result in the denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial").

"Because Brady and its progeny are grounded in the Due Process Clauses of the Constitution, the essential purpose of the rules enunciated in these cases is to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial by ensuring the reliability of any criminal verdict against him." United States v. Coppa , 267 F.3d 132, 139 (2d Cir. 2001). Indeed, "evidence is material in the Brady context only if ‘its suppression undermines confidence in the outcome of the trial.’ " Id. at 141 (citation omitted). As a result, the Second Circuit has "never interpreted due process of law as requiring more than that Brady material must be disclosed in time for its effective use at trial." Id. at 142 ; see United States v. Rodriguez , 496 F.3d 221, 226 (2d Cir. 2007) (" Brady...