Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Urias

United States District Court, D. Idaho

September 4, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
FRANK PAUL URIAS, Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER

          DAVID C. NYE U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Defendant Frank Urias' Motion for Production of Witness Statements. Dkt. 172. Having reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the facts and legal arguments are adequately presented. Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and because the Court finds that the decisional process would not be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will decide the motion without oral argument. For the reasons outlined below, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendant's Motion.

         II. BACKGROUND

         On July 25, 2017, a multi-count Indictment was filed against Mr. Urias and seven co-defendants. The Defendant went before Magistrate Judge Candy Dale for an initial appearance and arraignment on July 28, 2017. The Defendant entered a not-guilty plea and a jury trial and telephonic pretrial conference were set before District Judge B. Lynn Winmill. A detention hearing was held on August 1, 2017. Judge Dale granted the Government's Motion for Detention and an Order of Detention was entered.

         On November 28, 2017, a Superseding Indictment was filed against Mr. Urias and ten co-defendants. Mr. Urias was arraigned on the Superseding Indictment on December 20, 2017. The Defendant again entered a not-guilty plea and the previous Order of Detention remained in effect. Over the course of this case, several continuances have been granted due to Motions for Continuance by co-defendants or changes in counsel.

         On July 12, 2018, the Defendant filed the instant motion that is now ripe for ruling.

         III. APPLICABLE RULES

         FRCP 26.2(a) states:

After a witness other than the defendant has testified on direct examination, the court, on motion of a party who did not call the witness, must order an attorney for the government or the defendant and the defendant's attorney to produce, for the examination and use of the moving party, any statement of the witness that is in their possession and that relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony.
FRCP 26.2(f) defines the term “Statement” as:
(1) a written statement that the witness makes and signs, or otherwise adopts or approves;
(2) a substantially verbatim, contemporaneously recorded recital of the witness's oral statement that is contained in any recording or ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.