Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Ronald Donnell Brown was charged with leading a Houston drug-trafficking organization involved in distributing cocaine and marijuana and collecting drug proceeds. The superseding indictment alleged that Brown and members of the organization used violence to advance the enterprise and charged him with offenses including conspiracy to commit murder for hire, intentional killing while engaged in drug trafficking, drug-distribution conspiracy, and solicitation to commit murder.
Brown sought a subpoena under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) directing AT&T Corp. National Information Services, also known as Hemisphere, to produce call-detail records and cell-site location information associated with 14 phone numbers belonging to six government witnesses and murder victim Marcus Celestine. He also requested any Hemisphere analysis of those numbers, arguing that the records could corroborate or contradict expected testimony about drug transportation, money movements, Celestine’s murder, and Brown’s alleged role in those events.
The Court’s Holding
The court granted Brown’s motion in part, finding that the requested call-detail records and cell-site location information were relevant, potentially admissible, and identified with sufficient specificity under Rule 17(c). Brown tied the records to particular witnesses, phone numbers, anticipated testimony, and charged conduct, and the court concluded that the request was evidentiary, made in good faith, and not a general fishing expedition.
The court denied the request for “any analysis undertaken by Hemisphere” because Brown did not establish that such analysis was relevant or admissible and did not describe it with adequate specificity. The court ordered AT&T to provide defense counsel, within 30 days, the call-detail records and cell-site location information for the 14 listed numbers covering September 1, 2013, through July 31, 2014. It also directed the U.S. Marshals Service to serve the order and required the associated costs to be paid as they would be for a government witness subpoena.
Key Takeaways
- A criminal defendant seeking materials under Rule 17(c) must show relevance, potential admissibility, and adequate specificity.
- A request identifying particular phone numbers, individuals, evidence, and a defined period can satisfy Rule 17(c) when connected to expected testimony and charged offenses.
- A broad request for unspecified third-party analysis may be denied as insufficiently relevant and specific even when the underlying phone and location records are ordered produced.
Why It Matters
The decision illustrates how defendants may use Rule 17(c) to obtain targeted call-detail and cell-site records needed to test government witnesses’ accounts in a complex criminal prosecution. It also underscores that Rule 17(c) is an evidence-gathering mechanism, not a vehicle for open-ended discovery.
For practitioners, the ruling highlights the value of connecting each requested record to a specific witness, anticipated testimony, charged offense, phone number, and time period. Requests for derivative analyses require the same concrete showing and cannot rest on a generalized assertion that potentially useful information may exist.