United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Western Division
JEFFREY J. HELMICK UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before me on several pretrial matters. Defendant
Yahya Ibrahim filed motions to determine the admissibility of
his co-conspirator's statements prior to trial (Doc. No.
46), for disclosure of Brady material (Doc. No. 47),
for disclosure of the government's trial witnesses (Doc.
No. 48), requesting notice of the government's intent to
introduce evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b)
(Doc. No. 49), for relief from prejudicial joinder (Doc. No.
50), and to produce his co-defendants' statements (Doc.
No. 51). Defendants Abdul Faqi and Hussein Ahmed adopted
these motions. (Doc. Nos. 59 & 60). Defendant Ahmed Haaji
moved to join these motions. (Doc. Nos. 53-58). The
government filed an omnibus response (Doc. No. 68), and
Ibrahim filed a reply (Doc. No. 71).
1, 2016, Ibrahim, Ahmed, and Faqi were indicted on five
counts of health care fraud and aiding and abetting health
care fraud, as well as one count of conspiracy to commit
health care fraud. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 18-30). On
January 30, 2017, in a superseding indictment, Ibrahim,
Ahmed, Faqi, and Haaji were indicted on nine counts of health
care fraud and aiding and abetting health care fraud, as well
as one count of conspiracy to commit health care fraud. (Doc.
No. 27 at ¶¶ 22-34).
August 23, 2017, Ibrahim filed six pretrial motions. (Doc.
Nos. 46-51). I gave the remaining defendants until October 6,
2017, to join Ibrahim's motions. (Doc. No. 52). Faqi and
Ahmed adopted Ibrahim's motions. (Doc. Nos. 59 & 60).
Haaji moved to join all of Ibrahim's motions. (Doc. Nos.
53-58). I hereby grant Haaji's motions to join, so all
Defendants are now joined in Ibrahim's motions.
move for severance of their trials pursuant to Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 14 (Doc. No. 50), for the production of
their statements for my inspection (Doc. No. 51), for me to
set an evidentiary hearing to determine the admissibility of
their statements under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E)
(Doc. Nos. 46), for the disclosure of all potential
Brady evidence (Doc. Nos. 47), for the disclosure of
the government's trial witnesses (Doc. Nos. 48), and for
notice of the government's intent to use Rule 404(b)
evidence (Doc. Nos. 49). I address each motion below.
for Production of Defendants' Statements
first to Defendants' motion for the production of their
co-defendants' statements for my inspection. (Doc. No.
51). As part of its response, the government submitted
Faqi's, Ahmed's, and Ibrahim's statements, along
with proposed redactions. (Doc. Nos. 68-1, 68-2, & 68-3).
The government intends to use these statements, in whole or
in part, at trial. (Doc. No. 68 at 8). Haaji, according to
the government, was not present during the execution of any
search warrants and so was not interviewed. Because the
government has now disclosed Defendants' statements, I
deny as moot Defendants' motion to produce their
statements. (Doc. No. 51).
for Disclosure of Brady Material
Defendants ask that I issue an order requiring the government
to disclose all potential Brady evidence. (Doc. No.
47); see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963);
see also Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150
(1972). Defendants note that in the indictment and discovery
provided by the government there are references to government
witnesses with potential credibility issues. (Id. at
2). Defendants appear to then speculate that there may be
“concessions, implicit deals, translucent promises, and
other fertile potential impeachment evidence applicable to
these” witnesses as relates to their cooperation in
this case. (Id.). Defendants claim they should have
all discoverable evidence in order to decide how to proceed
with the case. (Id. at 3).
government does not oppose Defendants' motion, but
responds by recognizing its obligations under Brady
and Giglio. (Doc. No. 68 at 20). The government
further states it has made disclosures pursuant to these
obligations during discovery and that it will continue to do
so as that material becomes available. (Id.). I have
no reason to doubt the government's assertions, but in
recognition of its ongoing obligations under Brady
and Giglio, I grant Defendants' motion to the
extent any such evidence has yet to be disclosed. (Doc. No.
to Disclose the Government's Trial Witnesses
next seek an order requiring the government to disclose the
names of the witnesses it intends to call at trial. (Doc. No.
48). Defendants acknowledge it is early to seek such a
disclosure, but they justify their request by explaining that
this case is premised on an alleged six-year conspiracy
involving numerous potential witnesses. (Id. at 2).
Thus, Defendants claim they require disclosure of the
government's trial witnesses in order to prepare an
efficient and focused defense. (Id. at 2-3).
Defendants further argue this disclosure is necessary for
deciding whether to go to trial. (Id. at 3; Doc. No.
71 at 7). Defendants state “it is impossible for a
defendant to knowingly ...