USA v. Reid

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 05-cr-057-JD
Gordon Reid
SEALED ORDER
Gordon Reid moves ex parte and under seal to withdraw
certain motions that are duplicates of motions filed by his
standby counsel, moves for payment for services other than
counsel, and seeks to subpoena the personnel records of Renee
King from her former employers. These motions are resolved as
follows.
Reid’s motion to withdraw his ex parte motions for services
other than counsel and his motions to seal those motions is
granted. Documents numbered 209, 210, 211, 213, 214, and 215 are
withdrawn. Those documents will remain sealed until removed from
the docket, and any file copies will be shredded.
Reid moves for payment for services other than counsel to
retain a psychologist, Donald Davidoff, Ph.D., to testify at
trial and to have his investigator conduct certain interviews.
His request is made pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3006A(e) and §
3006A(d)(4)(B). Reid’s motion to approve payment to Dr. Davidoff
for his appearance at trial is approved. Reid moves to have his
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 1 of 5

2
investigator interview certain persons Deborah Poirier identified
during trial as being present when Reid consumed crack cocaine on
the night of the robbery. He explains that he was not aware of
these witnesses until Poirier testified. He also notes that
Oliver Broadbent is alleged to have been present during the
alleged robbery and asks for payment for his investigator to
interview him.
Reid’s request for payment to his investigator to interview
the people identified by Deborah Poirier is granted. With
respect to Oliver Broadbent, however, Reid has been aware since
early in this case that he was present at the store on the night
of the robbery with his father, David Broadbent, who identified
Reid on the night of the robbery and testified at the suppression
hearing and at trial. Further, the court believes that Oliver
Broadbent is a minor. The court will allow payment to the
investigator to interview Oliver Broadbent with the conditions,
if he is indeed a minor, that the investigator first contact
Oliver Broadbent’s parents to seek their permission and to
arrange for the interview, allow the parents to be present during
the interview, and conduct an interview in a manner that is
appropriate given the witness’s age. If at any time during the
interview Oliver Broadbent or his parents want to terminate it,
the investigator shall cease questioning and leave promptly.
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 2 of 5

3
Both Oliver Broadbent and his parents have a right to deny
permission for an interview and the investigator shall respect
that right if they choose to exercise it.
Reid also moves for a subpoena duces tecum for Renee King’s
personnel records pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
17(b) and (c). Subpoenas issued under Rule 17(c) are not a means
of general discovery in criminal cases. Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Ct.
for Dist. of Columbia, 542 U.S. 367, 386 (2004); Bowman Dairy Co.
v. United States, 341 U.S. 214, 220 (1951). Therefore, a
defendant seeking a subpoena duces tecum pursuant to Federal Rule
of Criminal Procedure 17(c) must show:
(1) that the documents are evidentiary and relevant;
(2) that they are not otherwise procurable reasonably
in advance of trial by exercise of due diligence; (3)
that the party cannot properly prepare for trial
without such production and inspection in advance of
trial and that the failure to obtain such inspection
may tend unreasonably to delay the trial; and (4) that
the application is made in good faith and is not
intended as a general "fishing expedition."
United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 698 (1974); accord United
States v. Shinderman, 232 F.R.D. 147, 150 (D. Me. 2005).
Reid states that he needs Renee King’s employment records to
defend against the government’s assertion that Reid’s threats of
violence put King in fear and that she was so affected by the
threats that she has been unable to maintain employment since the
robbery. He apparently hopes to find evidence in the employment
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 3 of 5

4
records that King left her subsequent employment for reasons
other than concerns caused by the robbery or that her subsequent
employment was not affected as she has testified. As such, King
seeks impeachment evidence against King on the peripheral topic
of whether fear caused by the robbery affected her subsequent
employment.
While such evidence, if found, might be relevant for
impeachment purposes and is not likely to be otherwise available,
it is not so important as to impair Reid’s ability to properly
prepare for trial. “Generally, the need for evidence to impeach
witnesses is insufficient to require its production in advance of
trial.” Nixon, 418 U.S. at 701. Further, there is no basis to
believe that such evidence exists. This is nothing more than a
fishing expedition involving a peripherally relevant matter,
which is not a permitted use of Rule 17(c).
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to
withdraw (document no. 218) and to seal (document no. 217) are
granted. The defendant’s motion for services other than counsel
(psychologist) (document no. 222) and to seal (document no. 221)
are granted. The defendant’s motion for services other than
counsel (investigator) (document no. 216) and motion to seal
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 4 of 5

5
(document no. 212) are granted subject to the conditions in this
order. The defendant’s motion for subpoenas (document no. 220)
is denied; the motion to seal (document no. 219) is granted.
Reid shall provide his investigator with a copy of that part
of this order that provides the conditions for the interview with
Oliver Broadbent. The investigator shall inform Oliver
Broadbent’s parents of the interview conditions set forth in this
order at the time he initially contacts them and of their right
and their son’s right to refuse permission for the interview.
The investigator shall comply with the conditions in the order.
Failure to comply with the conditions placed on the interview
with Oliver Broadbent is subject to penalty for contempt of
court.
SO ORDERED.
Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.
United States District Judge
March 22, 2006
cc: Gordon Reid, pro se
Michael J. Iacopino, Esquire
Case 1:05-cr-00057-SM Document 236 Filed 03/22/06 Page 5 of 5