• Call us now! (202) 379-1933

Motion to Compel Discovery

Motion to Compel Discovery

150 150 Cohen, Bradshaw, Rothstein & Klein

DEFENDANT, by and through undersigned counsel and pursuant to Rule 3.220(n), Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests this Court to enter an Order compelling the State of Washington DC to comply with the various rules of discovery outlined in Rule 3.220.  As grounds for this Motion, Defendant states as follows:

  1. On March 12, 2012, Defendant served the State of Washington DC with a Notice of Discovery pursuant to Rule 3.220, Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure.
  2. On or about March 25, 2012, the State of Washington DC served a response to the above-described Notice.
  3. Defendant contends that the State of Washington DC’s response to Defendant’s Notice of Discovery is legally insufficient and non-compliant with Rule 3.220 for the reasons set forth below:
  4. Under Rule 3.220(b)(1)(A), Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure, the State of Washington DC must, upon demand, furnish to a defendant the names and addresses of all persons known to the prosecutor to have any information which may be relevant to the charges or to any defense.  In response to Defendant’s demand for that information, the prosecution identified several persons, but prefaced that list with the statement, “Any transcripts of proceedings before the Washington DC Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles regarding the instant Defendant in the instant matter.”  This response is insufficient and inadequate and defeats the purpose of Rule 3.220.
  5. Under Rule 3.220(b)(1)(B), Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure, the State of Washington DC must, upon demand, permit defense counsel to inspect, copy, and photograph the statement of any person whose name is furnished in compliance with Rule 3.220(b)(1)(A).  In response to Defendant’s demand for the identification and production of such statements, the prosecution responded as follows: “Any statements on the arrest and booking docket CCR# 123-45678, uniform traffic citation, field sobriety report, implied consent form, breath alcohol test affidavit, and refusal affidavit.  This response amounts to nothing more than a blanket assertion that, somewhere in the documentation pertaining to the present case, there may a statement. This boilerplate response is insufficient and inadequate and defeats the purpose of the Rule.
  6. Under Rule 3.220(b)(1)(C), Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure, the State must permit defense counsel to inspect, copy, test, and photograph any written or recorded statement and the substance of any oral statements made by the accused, including a copy of any statements contained in police reports or report summaries, together with the name and address of each witness to such statements.  The response of the prosecution to that demand by Defendant was “Any statements by the accused on the arrest and booking docket CCR# 123-45678, uniform traffic citation, field sobriety report, implied consent form, breath alcohol test affidavit, and refusal affidavit.”   That response is insufficient and inadequate and defeats the purpose of the Rule.
  7. Under Rule 3.220(b)(1)(K), Washington DC Rules of Criminal Procedure, the prosecution must, upon demand, furnish to a defendant any tangible papers or objects that the prosecuting attorney intends to use in a hearing or trial that were not obtained from or did not belong to the defendant.  The response of the prosecution to that demand was “All items of evidence listed in the arrest and booking report CCR# 123-45678, uniform traffic citation, field sobriety report, implied consent form, breath alcohol test affidavit, refusal affidavit, and maps/photos of incident/arrest location.”  This response is so evasive and equivocal that it defeats the purpose of discovery and misleads Defendant in the preparation if his defense.  Defendant contends that he is entitled to know with a reasonable degree of particularity and specificity what items the State is referring to in its response to Defendant’s Notice of Discovery.

WHEREFORE, Defendant respectfully requests that this Court enter an Order requiring the State disclose or specify the information or documents described herein.