U.S. v. Woods

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. NAFIS WOODS a/k/a DARNELL BENNETT

Court: United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Oct 6, 2004

Criminal Action No. 00-273-02 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 6, 2004)

Opinion

Criminal Action No. 00-273-02.

October 6, 2004

MEMORANDUM

ROBERT KELLY, Senior District Judge

After being convicted in a jury trial of conspiracy to commit armed carjacking, armed carjacking, carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, brandishing a firearm during a crime of violence and felon in possession of a firearm the Defendant Nafis Woods was sentenced to 240 months in prison on September 7, 2001.

The Judgment of Sentence was affirmed by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in an Opinion dated January 21, 2003.

Defendant has now filed a Motion seeking to compel the government to provide him with a transcript of the evidence presented to the grand jury. The only statement in support of this request in the Motion is the following:

The government with-held vital information, that was quite pertinent to petitioner's defense, which, was in the form of perjurious testimony given to the grand jurors during the grand jury proceedings.

The Defendant provides no facts to support his belief expressed in the above paragraph. There are presently no proceedings involving this defendant pending in this Court.

Absent a showing of "substantial likelihood of gross or prejudicial irregularities in the conduct of the grand jury" a Court should not order disclosure of transcripts of grand jury proceedings. United States v. Budzanoski, 462 F.2d 443, 454 (3d Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 949 (1972). Furthermore, an indigent prisoner is not entitled to a free transcript to search for error in an attempt to generate a basis for collaterally attacking a conviction. See Sistrunk v. United States, 992 F.2d 258, 259 (10^th Cir. 1993); Ruark v. Gunter, 958 F.2d 318, 319 (10^th Cir. 1992);United States ex rel. Buford v. Henderson, 524 F.2d 147, 152-53 (2d Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 923 (1976); Ellis v. Maine, 448 F.2d 1325, 1327 (1^st Cir. 1971); King v. Freeman, 1988 WL 82882 (E.D. Pa., Aug. 4, 1988).

I therefore enter the following Order.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6th day of October, 2004, after consideration of Defendant's Motion to be provided a transcript of the grand jury testimony in the above-captioned case, said Motion is DENIED.