Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Sullivan

United States District Court, D. Hawaii

December 19, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
LEIHINAHINA SULLIVAN, Defendant.

          ORDER DENYING MOTION TO SUBPOENA FOR PRETRIAL MOTIONS HEARINGS, ECF NO. 352

          J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. INTRODUCTION

         On November 21, 2019, pro se Defendant Leihinahina Sullivan (“Defendant”) filed a “Motion to Subpoena For Pretrial Motions Hearings; Grand Jury Testimony Printed Out no access to printer to provide defense for myself, violation 8th Amend” (“Motion”). ECF No. 352. On December 5, 2019, the Government filed a Response. ECF No. 412. For the reasons discussed below, the Motion is DENIED.

         II. DISCUSSION

         Defendant requests subpoenas for certain individuals to testify at scheduled hearings and for the Government to produce certain discovery at those hearings. More specifically, Defendant requests subpoenas for the following witnesses:

         (1) Craig Jerome and William Harrison (her prior counsel) to testify at a December 9, 2019 hearing on Defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to produce discovery (ECF No. 256) “about discovery request and non-compliance resulting in speedy trial violation, ” ECF No. 352 at PageID #3607;

         (2) Kapono Sullivan and William Harrison to testify at a January 6, 2020 hearing on a motion to suppress. Kapono Sullivan would testify about “his interrogation for passcodes, ” and William Harrison would testify about a “phone call made to him on agent's phone on June 1, 2019 about passcodes, ” id.; and (3) Special Agent Mark MacPherson to testify at a January 6, 2020 hearing on a motion for an evidentiary hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978), (ECF No. 231), id.

         In addition, Defendant requests subpoenas for the Government to produce:

(1) at a January 6, 2020 hearing on a motion to dismiss for prosecutorial misconduct (ECF No. 223), grand jury testimony of six individuals and for seven individuals to testify about “[Assistant United States Attorney Rebecca] Perlmutter's misconduct, ” id.; and
(2) at a January 6, 2020 hearing on a motion to suppress (ECF No. 232), “all 9 boxes with all items taken” during a June 1, 2017 search of Defendant's home, id. at PageID #3608.

         A. Legal Standards

         Under the Sixth Amendment, every person charged with a federal crime shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in her favor. U.S. Const. amend VI. And criminal defendants have the right under the compulsory process clause of the Sixth Amendment to the government's assistance in compelling the attendance of favorable witnesses. See United States v. Valenzuela-Bernal, 458 U.S. 858, 867 (1982); United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914, 926-27 (9th Cir. 2009).

         In turn, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17 provides for the issuance of subpoenas in criminal proceedings. Under Rule 17(b):

Upon a defendant's ex parte application, the court must order that a subpoena be issued for a named witness if the defendant shows an inability to pay the witness's fees and the necessity of the witness's presence for an adequate defense. If the court orders a subpoena to be issued, the process costs and witness fees will be ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.