1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
RENE L. VALLADARES
Federal Public Defender
Nevada State Bar No. 11479
WILLIAM CARRICO
Nevada State Bar No. 003042
Assistant Federal Public Defender
BRENDA WEKSLER
Nevada State Bar No. 8124
Assistant Federal Public Defender
RYAN NORWOOD
Assistant Federal Public Defender
411 E. Bonneville Avenue, Suite 250
Las Vegas, Nevada 89101
(702) 388-6577/Phone
(702) 388-6261/Fax
Ryan_Norwood@fd.org
Attorneys for Ryan W. Payne
11
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
12
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
13
14
15
16
17
18
Plaintiff,
v.
RYAN W. PAYNE,
Defendant.
19
20
21
COMES NOW defendant Ryan W. Payne, by and through his counsel of record,
22
WILLIAM CARRICO, RYAN NORWOOD, and BRENDA WEKSLER, and moves this Court
23
for an order appointing a special master to inquire into: (1) the recording of confidential,
24
privileged calls between detainees at CCA-Pahrump and their attorneys, (2) CCA-Pahrumps
25
disclosure of those recordings to the U.S. Attorneys Office, (3) the U.S. Attorneys Offices
26
dissemination of those recordings to co-defendants of the detainees being recorded, and (4) the
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
I.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
As explained in Mr. Paynes simultaneously filed Motion to Compel and for Order to
Cease and Desist Recording, undersigned counsel has a good faith belief that the Nevada
Southern Detention Center in Pahrump, Nevada, a jail facility operated by the Corrections
confidential phone conversations with their attorneys. Counsel has a good faith basis to believe
CCA-Pahrump hands over recordings of these privileged, confidential conversations to the U.S.
Attorneys Office for the District of Nevada (USAO), which has in turn produced them during
10
discovery to co-defendants of the detainees being recorded. If Mr. Paynes attorney-client calls
11
have been recorded and divulged, these facts make out a prima facie showing that his Sixth
12
Amendment rights have been violated. See United States v. Danielson, 325 F.3d 1054, 1071
13
14
Mr. Payne has requested an evidentiary hearing to investigate the extent of CCA-
15
16
the USAOs rules and procedures for using recordings of those calls. The information obtained
17
through that hearing should assist the court in its duty to fashion a remedy that put[s] [Mr.
18
Payne] back in the position he would have been in if the Sixth Amendment violation never
19
occurred. Loher v. Thomas, 825 F.3d 1103, 1122 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks
20
omitted).
21
But that information cannot provide a remedy to the hundreds of other pretrial detainees
22
housed at CCA-Pahrump whose confidential, privileged attorney-client phone calls may also
23
have been recorded. Attorneys for those pretrial detaineesincluding the Office of the Federal
24
25
sure to file motions based on the information in Mr. Paynes Motion to Compel. That
26
information will support motions to compel discovery, motions to dismiss, motions to suppress,
motions for new trial, motions to set aside plea agreements, and motions for disqualification,
among others. In addition, defendants who have already been sentenced are likely to use
evidence of CCA-Pahrumps recording to appeal their sentences or move to set aside their
convictions under 28 U.S.C. 2255 since plea agreements generally do not bar appellate or
Given the large number of defendants potentially affected, litigation relating to CCA-
involving extensive review of documents and phone recordings. Centralizing fact-finding for
all defendants potentially involved will avoid the need for CCA-Pahrump and the USAO to
10
11
with numerous defense counsel. It will also minimize the administrative burden on defense
12
counsel and this Court. Mr. Payne therefore moves the Court to appoint a special master to
13
make the expected litigation more manageable and efficient. The special master should be
14
15
(1)
CCA-Pahrumps past and current policies with regard to recording attorneyclient phone calls;
(2)
(3)
when and under what circumstances the USAO has sought production from
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
24
25
26
(4)
when and under what circumstances the USAO has inadvertently come into
possession of attorney-client calls recorded at CCA-Pahrump, including:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
3
4
5
6
7
8
II.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
Although the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure do not expressly authorize the
10
appointment of special masters in criminal cases, the Ninth Circuit has held the Rules give
11
district courts substantial discretion to manage their dockets. United States v. Hernandez,
12
251 F.3d 1247, 1251 (9th Cir. 2001); cf. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53 (permitting district courts to appoint
13
special masters to preside over certain civil matters). Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
14
57(b), a judge may regulate practice in any manner consistent with federal law, these rules,
15
and the local rules of the district. This rule recognizes, Courts have (at least in the absence
16
17
instruments required for the performance of their duties. United States v. Ray, 375 F.3d 980,
18
993 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Peterson, 253 U.S. 300, 312 (1920). The Ninth Circuit has
19
20
21
22
23
24
It is recognized that wide latitude is reposed in the district court to carry out
successfully its mandate to effectuate, as far as possible, the speedy and orderly
administration of justice. A federal court has the responsibility to supervise the
administration of criminal justice in order to ensure fundamental fairness. It
would be ill-advised to limit improvidently this inherent power for fear of
misuse. The firing point of the legal system is with the trial judge who is best
situated to administer the law and protect the rights of all.
25
United States v. Richter, 488 F.2d 170, 173-74 (9th Cir. 1973) (internal quotation marks
26
omitted).
At least one circuit has cited Rule 53 to support appointment of a special master in
criminal cases. First Iowa Hydro Elec. Co-Op. v. Iowa-Ill. Gas & Elec. Co., 245 F.2d 613, 627
(8th Cir. 1957) ([T]he Court may, in its discretion, make appointment of a Master to assist in
any of the incidents of a proceeding before it, whether civil or criminal, so long as there is no
infringement upon the right of trial by jury or any prejudice to other substantive right.).
Without discussing the source of such authority, the Ninth Circuit has approved the district
courts appointment of a special master to handle discovery in a criminal case. See United
States v. Griffin, 440 F.3d 1138, 1140-41, 45. This Court has inherent authority to appoint a
special master to handle ongoing inquiry into CCA-Pahrumps and the USAOs handling of
10
11
CONCLUSION
12
13
those calls to the USAO, and the USAOs dissemination of them in discovery, may have
14
violated hundreds of pretrial detainees Sixth Amendment rights to the effective assistance of
15
counsel. To streamline those prisoners anticipated litigation, Mr. Payne asks this Court to
16
appoint a special master tasked with finding and reporting on the relevant facts.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
1
2
The undersigned hereby certifies that she is an employee of the Federal Public Defender
for the District of Nevada and is a person of such age and discretion as to be competent to serve
papers.
That on October 3, 2016, she served an electronic copy of the above and foregoing
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
DANIEL G. BOGDEN
United States Attorney
ERIN M. CREEGAN
Assistant United States Attorney
NADIA JANJUA AHMEN
Assistant United States Attorney
NICHOLAS DICKINSON
Assistant United States Attorney
STEVEN MYHRE
Assistant United States Attorney
501 Las Vegas Blvd. South
Suite 1100
Las Vegas, NV 89101
/s/ Lauren Pullen
Employee of the Federal Public Defender
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26