Stuart’s company, New Age Chemical, and sister of the defendant, Beverly Schlipp, provided alengthy statement to IRS Special Agents Matthew Rech and Park Jones on February 19, 2009,the same day the search warrant had been executed at New Age Chemical. As the SpecialAgents memorialized in the February 19, 2009 MOI, they “formally reintroduced themselves” toMs. Schilpp before taking her statement. However, the February 19, 2009 MOI is the firstrecorded IRS contact with Ms. Schlipp, according to the discovery provided thus far, and it islikely there were prior contacts with Ms. Schlipp before February 19, 2009.
A. THE DUTY TO DISCLOSE
Due process compels the disclosure of evidence material either to the guilt or punishmentof the defendant.
Brady v. Maryland,
373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963). This requires the governmentdisclose any evidence that could play a role in uncovering admissible evidence, aiding witness preparation, corroborating testimony, or assisting impeachment or rebuttal.
United States v. Bagley
, 473 U.S. 667 (1985);
Unites States v. Lloyd
, 992 F.2d, 348, 351 (D.C.Cir.1993). “Taken together, this group of constitutional privileges delivers exculpatory evidenceinto the hand of the accused, thereby protecting the innocent from erroneous conviction andensuring the integrity of the criminal justice system.”
California v. Trombetta
, 467 U.S. 479,485 (1984). Moreover, in this federal prosecution, the Court’s supervisory power to safeguard“the correct administration of justice in the federal courts” reinforces the due processrequirement of disclosure.
United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp
., 291 F.2d 563, 571(2nd Cir. 1961);
United States v. Miller
, 411 F.2d 825, 832 (2nd Cir. 1969).
See generally,Communist Party of the United States v. S.A.C.B
., 351 U.S. 115, 124 (1956).
Case 2:10-cr-00288-CNC Filed 03/18/11 Page 2 of 10 Document 27