United States District Court, D. South Carolina, Orangeburg Division
ORDER AND OPINION
MARGARET B. SEYMOUR SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Roger Moultrie (“Defendant”) is the sole
individual named in a two-count Indictment filed on December
6, 2017. ECF No.2. Count One charges that on or about August
20, 2015, Defendant knowingly, intentionally, and unlawfully
possessed with the intent to distribute a quantity of cocaine
and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1)
and 841(b)(1)(C). Id. Count Two charges that on or
about August 28, 2017, Defendant knowingly, intentionally,
and unlawfully possessed with intent to distribute a quantity
of cocaine and cocaine base in violation of 21 U.S.C.
§§ 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C). Id.
filed a motion to sever on October 29, 2018. ECF No.86. On
December 10, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for production of
discovery. ECF No. 102. In that motion, Defendant sought the
identity of a “drug user with drugs” who
ultimately assisted in Defendant's arrest. Id.
at 2. After a hearing, the court denied the motion to sever
on December 13, 2018. ECF No. 106. Also at that hearing, the
parties discussed the motion for production. The court gave
the government until January 31, 2019 to file an updated
memorandum in opposition. The government complied with the
court's request. ECF No. 111. After reviewing the briefs,
the court denied Defendant's motion. ECF No. 112. The
court noted that the “drug user with drugs” had a
limited role in Defendant's arrest. Id. at 3.
The court also indicated that the government stated that it
did not intend to call the “drug user with drugs”
as a witness at trial. Id.
March 12, 2019, Defendant filed a motion to reconsider,
requesting that the court reconsider its denial of his
discovery disclosure motion. ECF No. 116. Defendant argues
that the court “ordered” the government to
provide affidavits concerning the identity of the “drug
user with drugs” during the December 13, 2018 hearing.
Id. at 2. Defendant further argues that the court
considered Defendant's motion without the “benefit
of affidavits.” Id.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION
not explicitly mentioned in the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, courts have long recognized that parties may file
motions to reconsider rulings in criminal matters.
“'The purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to
correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly
discovered evidence.'” United States v. Dickerson,
971 F.Supp. 1023, 1024 (E.D. Va. 1997)(quoting Harsco Corp.
v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906, 909 (3d Cir. 1985)).
court has reviewed the hearing transcript. At the hearing,
the court stated that it “would really like to know
exactly what the situation is so [it] can make an informed
decision. . . .” Tr. 32 at 1-3. The court further
stated that it “really would like to know whether or
not this person who made the call was involved in the August
28th stop; and if they were, what their role was.”
Id. at 7-10. The court reasoned that supplemental
briefing could solve any confusion, and then ordered the
government to “provide [the court] a clarifying brief
as to what happened after [the government] talked to the
officers[.]” Tr. 33 at 2-5. Counsel for Defendant
requested that the government obtain sworn testimony via
affidavit from the officers in question. Id. at
8-12. The government responded that the affidavits may or may
not be useful. Id. at 17-20. The court responded
that it “would like to know what happened with the
call. . ., ” to which the government responded that it
was possible to obtain that information via affidavit.
Id. at 21-25. The court concluded by stating
“well, let me see what you get. . . [a]nd then based on
that, we'll decide whether I need another hearing on
it.” Tr. 34 at 1-3. At no point did the court
explicitly order the production of affidavits. The court
simply told the government that it would “see what [the
government would] get.” The provided clarifying brief
contained more information about the “drug user with
drugs, ” and even contained information regarding the
government's plan not to call the “drug user with
drugs” as a witness at trial. Using that more detailed
brief, the court was able to reach an informed decision. The
court discerns no manifest errors of fact or law, nor does it
discern any new evidence. Defendant's motion is without
foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to ...