DOJ-OGR-00022041.jpg

Case 1:19-cr-00830-AT Document 33 Filed 04/09/20 Page 18 of 38 Undoubtedly, the government is going to assert that the requested documents in this motion are not relevant or material and do not bear on the charges as they relate to the conduct that did or did not take place on August 10, 2019. The documents sought are material if they will help the defense with trial preparation tasks such as evaluating the strength of the government’s case, investigating possible defenses, finding additional relevant evidence, and developing strategies to impeach government witnesses. See United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12 (D.D.C. 2005) It is not up to the government to define Mr. Thomas’ defenses to the indictment or to determine what is useful in preparing them. For these reasons, this Court should include the requirement of the production of both inculpatory and exculpatory evidence in any order granting this motion to compel. At this juncture, however, the government has made, at best, a token objection to the | discovery by citing to a terse denial made at a previous court appearance. Mr. Thomas, therefore, cannot guess what may be other objections, but this Court should overrule any such attestations as going against fundamental fairness. C. The Reports and Documents Requested Are Discoverable Under Bradv This motion has articulated several rationales ypon which the defendant in this matter is entitled to much more information than the government is voluntarily willing to disclose. The government’s disclosure obligations do not end with Rule 16. Much of the discovery sought by this motion is firmly rooted within the scriptures of documents that must be disclosed under the doctrine set forth in Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), and its progeny. Under Brady, the government has an affirmative duty to produce any evidence favorable to the defendant that is material to either guilt or punishment. See United States v. Bagley, 473 U.S. 667, 674-75 (1985) (the prosecution is required “to disclose evidence favorable to the accused that, if suppressed, would deprive the defendant of a fair trial”). Both exculpatory information and evidence that can be used to impeach the prosecution’s witnesses are considered 14 DOJ-OGR- 00022041