United States v. Burton
2015 WL 365878, 81 F. Supp. 3d 1229, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12603 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16, a defendant is not entitled to compel the government to produce documents that are not material to the defense. Information ceases to be material if the government stipulates to the facts the defendant seeks to prove with the requested documents, or if the government represents that the information does not exist.
Facts:
- Kevin Folse, while incarcerated, acted as a confidential informant (CI) for the FBI, working with Special Agent Kalon Fancher.
- The United States alleged that Folse and Arthur Burton schemed to sell fake cocaine base to an undercover officer to steal $7,000 from the FBI.
- From prison, Folse made several telephone calls to Burton to coordinate the scheme.
- On June 4, 2013, Burton recruited James Ronquillo to deliver approximately 207 grams of the fake substance to an undercover officer in exchange for the $7,000.
- After the exchange, FBI agents in a surveillance vehicle followed Ronquillo.
- Believing he was being pursued by rival drug dealers, Ronquillo called 911 for help and then tried to escape by speeding toward and striking the FBI vehicle.
- Following the collision, Ronquillo was arrested by local police, but Burton escaped with the $7,000 and remained at large.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico returned a sealed indictment charging Kevin Folse and Arthur Burton with conspiracy, wire fraud, and theft of government property.
- Defendant Folse filed a Sealed Motion to Compel Production of Discovery in the district court.
- The United States filed a sealed response in opposition to the motion.
- The district court, which is the court of first instance for this federal felony case, held a hearing on the motion.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 require the government to produce investigative reports, records of a confidential informant's prior activities, and internal policies when the government stipulates to the key facts the defendant seeks to prove, represents that some materials do not exist, and has already provided or agreed to provide all other relevant information?
Opinions:
Majority - Browning, J.
No. The government is not required to produce the requested materials because the defendant has not shown they are material to his defense under Rule 16. The government’s stipulations as to the key factual points rendered the underlying evidence immaterial. Specifically, the Court denied the defendant's motion to compel for five categories of information. First, records of the shooting investigation were not material because the government stipulated that the participants did not know they were dealing with law enforcement and that the agent involved was not disciplined. Second, records of the defendant's prior informant activities were not material because the government stipulated that the agent never suspected the defendant of prior wrongdoing and agreed to produce records of the one relevant prior transaction. Third, recordings of a co-conspirator's interview were not discoverable because the government represented they do not exist and had already turned over the written summary. Fourth, internal FBI policies were not material because the government stipulated that older policies already in the defendant's possession were substantially similar to current ones. Finally, records of the agent's conversations were not discoverable where the government represented they did not exist or where it had already agreed to produce the relevant portions of the defendant's CI file. A defendant cannot use Rule 16 to conduct a 'fishing expedition' into government files based on speculation.
Analysis:
This opinion provides a practical illustration of the materiality requirement in federal criminal discovery under Rule 16. It demonstrates how a prosecutor can strategically use stipulations to defeat a motion to compel, effectively arguing that once a fact is conceded, the evidence sought to prove it is no longer 'material to preparing the defense.' The decision reinforces the principle that a defendant must provide a specific factual basis, beyond mere speculation, to justify discovery of sensitive government files like internal policies or broad investigative reports. This case serves as a guide for both defense counsel and prosecutors on the limits of discovery and the tactical use of stipulations in pre-trial litigation.
