Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
The court had ordered the parties to file all pretrial materials, including exhibit lists, by July 14, 2026. Ten days after that deadline, the government sought leave to file a second amended exhibit list adding surveillance video from the crime scene and still images that allegedly showed a person resembling Gregory Brown disabling surveillance cameras before the charged offense.
The U.S. Postal Service had possessed the footage since as early as June 2025, but government counsel did not learn of it until a postal inspector reviewed the video while preparing for trial on July 24, 2026. The government disclosed the footage to Brown that day. After the court denied the government’s initial motion without prejudice for failing to provide reasons and supporting authority, the government filed an amended motion explaining the delay.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted the government leave to file its second amended exhibit list, finding excusable neglect under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(1)(B). Although disclosure only four days before trial prejudiced Brown and the evidence had been within the government’s reasonable control, the court emphasized that counsel disclosed it immediately upon discovery, the evidence was highly probative, and there was no indication of bad faith. The court concluded that a continuance could cure the prejudice.
The court separately held that the late disclosure violated Rule 16 because the footage had been in the government’s possession since at least June 2025, regardless of counsel’s lack of actual awareness. Applying the relevant sanction factors, the court determined that excluding the evidence would be unnecessarily severe. It instead admitted the new exhibits and continued the trial and pretrial deadlines, finding that the continuance was the least severe adequate sanction and that the ends of justice outweighed the interests in a speedy trial.
Key Takeaways
- Evidence held by an investigating agency may be treated as within the government’s possession for Rule 16 purposes even when prosecuting counsel does not know it exists.
- Prompt disclosure after discovery and the absence of bad faith supported a finding of excusable neglect for the government’s untimely exhibit list.
- Because additional preparation time could cure the defense’s prejudice, the court continued the trial rather than excluding the surveillance evidence.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates that a prosecutor’s lack of actual knowledge does not necessarily excuse a Rule 16 violation when evidence was already held by the government’s investigative arm. At the same time, exclusion is not automatic: courts may choose a continuance when it adequately protects the defendant and is the least severe effective remedy.