SEC Charges Eleven in Stock Manipulation Ring

[scion]

The prosecution argues that generic requests for Brady material should be denied unless Mr. Mangiapane can show that he has been denied specific Brady material. Response, page 27, paragraph 2.

The prosecution does not disclose which of Mr. Mangiapane's requests it deemed "generic." Once discovery commences in this case, Mr. Mangiapane will certainly bring any specific requests for discovery to the attention of the prosecution and the Court.

08/24/2009 52 REPLY To Plaintiff's Omnibus Response To Defendant Mangiapane's Pre-Trial Motions (see 47 Response to Motions) filed by Joseph Mangiapane, Jr. (nms) (Entered: 08/25/2009)
----------------

Doc 47 OCR extract - part 5: GOVERNMENT'S OMNIBUS RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT MANGIAPANE'S PRE-TRIAL MOTIONS

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=40259564

Response, page 27, paragraph 2

The defendant's requests for generic categories of information under the auspices of Brady should also be denied. While a defendant may attempt to raise a Brady claim prior to trial, see United States v. Augurs, 427 U.S. 97, 107 (1976), in such situations it is the government, and not the Court, which is charged with determining what evidence in the government's control constitutes Brady material. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 59; Leung, 40 F. 3d at 582. Unless the defendant becomes aware of specific Brady material that has been withheld, and brings that evidence to the Court's attention, the government's determination on disclosure in the pre-trial context is generally regarded as final. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 59; United States v. Ramos, 27 F.3d 65, 71 (3d Cir. 1994).[18]

[18]Thus, the defendant may not require the Court to search through the government's files in camera in the pre-trial context without first establishing a basis for his claim that the file contains evidence that would satisfy the materiality standard of Brady. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 58 n.15. The defendant does not have a constitutional right to know the complete contents of the government's files in order to present arguments in favor of disclosure. See Ritchie, 480 U.S. at 59; United States v. Dent, 149 F.3d 180, 191 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. denied 525 U.S. 1085 (1999); Leung, 40 F.3d at 583.

At this early stage of the proceedings, therefore, an order identifying generic categories of material as falling within Brady would be inappropriate.[19]

[19] For the record, the government objects to the various categories of information sought under the Brady umbrella in the defendant's motion. Should the Court disagree with the government's view that a Brady Order should not be entered in the pre-trial context, the government respectfully requests leave to file specific objections to the seven items listed in the defendant's motion.