Direct link to 39 page pdf
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/documents/2006_04_06_governments_response_to_third_motion_to_compel.pdfSite URL
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/iln/osc/legal_proceedings.htmlCase 1:05-cr-00394-RBW Document 80 Filed 04/05/2006
GOVERNMENT’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT’S THIRD MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY
~snip~
ARGUMENT
Defendant’s third discovery motion seeks expansive additional discovery, principally on the
ground that the documents sought are “material to the preparation of the defense,” as that phrase is
used in Fed. R. Evid. 16(a)(1)(E)(i). Defendant asserts that the documents he seeks, which among
other things include nearly every document generated by four large executive branch entities relating
o Ambassador Joseph Wilson’s trip to Niger, are discoverable under Rule 16 because they will
assist in the preparation of witness examinations, provide context for the government’s allegations,
and demonstrate his lack of a motive to commit the perjury and false statement offenses charged in
he indictment.
Defendant’s motion is flawed in two fundamental respects. First, it rests on an unsupportable
reading of Rule 16 which, if adopted by the Court, would to a large extent substitute open file
discovery for Rule 16, a proposition that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts. Second, it is
premised on relevance arguments which overlook the fact that defendant is charged with perjury, not
a conspiracy to commit various other crimes. When viewed against the correct legal standards for
discovery and in the context of the crimes charged in the indictment, defendant’s motion for
miscellaneous additional discovery should be denied for the reasons set forth more fully below.
~snip~