The Law Forums will be shutting down on June 30, 2017. We encourage you to resolve any outstanding discussions prior to that time. If you have any questions about this change, please email

Use of FOIA to obtain criminal discovery packet

Latest post Sat, May 6 2017 4:01 PM by Stanley Bolten. 3 replies.
  • Sat, May 6 2017 11:35 AM

    Use of FOIA to obtain criminal discovery packet

    A few questions I have are:

    (1)Does a criminal Defendant really have to resort to FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Attorney to obtain the discovery evidence?

    (2)Can a lawyer, terminated as Counsel of record, continue stonewalling their client from getting their criminal case discovery packet upon notifying that lawer that he/she wishes to prove actual Innocence?

    (3)If a lawyer cites a local rules saying no criminal Defendants in the entire Federal Middle District may have their discovery packet except only through a lawyer and also says that they can dispose of the discovery evidence? Does that go on borderline Brady Violation (Giglio v. US) or Strickland v. Washington violation?

    Here are the details for any lawyers wanting tio investigate this FOIA Lawsuit. I would like for any of them to give an opinion as to whether they think continuing the FOIA Lawsuit would be wise or foolish to prove that the U.S. Attorney is covering up their case records and only leaving certain records behind that aren't favorable to the criminal Defense.

    Here is a new FOIA lawsuit that, if successful, will change the way criminal Defendants can request a copy of their discovery packet for their criminal case in the event of having a horrible public defender that basically sells your defense out to the Prosecution and forces you to take a false guilty plea agreement or you face serious prison time when you clearly had enough evidence to convince at least one or more reasonable Jurors to find you not guilty.

    Here are some of the legal issues raised by this particular FOIA Lawsuit:

         (1)Plaintiff submitted requests that reasonably described the exact records sought and was made in accordance with EOUSA and DOJ's published rules, as well as stating that purpose for such records would ONLY be to prove actual innocence to a criminal charge and conviction.
         (2)In response, the defendants' have failed to conduct a search reasonably calculated to uncover all responsive agency records. The U.S. Attorney either lied to the DOJ paralegal that what was to be released in the FOIA response was all that there was in the discovery of the criminal case, or that certain records may or may not have been illegally removed, but there is no clarification on that issue from the EOUSA. If the missing records were really removed from the U.S. Attorney case files concerning Brian David Hill, whom they had prosecuted and convicted, then they need to clarify that such records were either destroyed, transferred back to the investigating agencies, or that the U.S. Attorney lied to protect themselves from possible liability involving a possible wrongful conviction.
        (3)Therefore, defendants' violated the FOIA's mandate to search for responsive records. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(D).
        (4)Plaintiff properly asked for records within the defendants' control.
        (5)Plaintiff is entitled by law and by the Due Process clause to access to the records requested under the FOIA, unless defendants make an explicit and justified statutory exemption claim.
         (6)Plaintiffs have improperly withheld records and somebody within the U.S. Attorney office lied that “0 records were withheld in full (WIF)”. Those records have not been confirmed as to whether they still exist or not. Even if the U.S. Attorney is claiming that certain records don’t exist anymore, it is suspicious that the Mayodan Police investigative report is still in the EOUSA’s findings and that only 19 pages of a 20 page police report were located.
         (7)Defendants have not produced all the records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA requests.
         (8)Therefore, defendants have violated the FOIA's mandate to release agency records to the public by failing to release the records as plaintiff specifically requested. 5 U.S.C. §§ 552(a)(3)(A), 552(a)(4)(B).
         (9)The plaintiff wishes to prove his actual innocence by getting access to his discovery packet that he should have clearly been entitled to as apart of his rights to criminal discovery under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Bill of Rights.
        (10)The Defendants’ have released records pursuant to plaintiff’s FOIA request but is not everything that was in the original criminal discovery packet of papers that were once in the possession of Ex-Attorney Eric David Placke, but is now in the custody of ex-Attorney John Scott Coalter. Mr. Coalter is refusing to release the discovery evidence packet to the plaintiff, despite being terminated as Legal Counsel on 11/12/2014. Attorney Renorda E. Pryor was only appointed under CJA for the matter of the Supervised Release revocation proceeding in 2015. The plaintiff currently is not represented for his criminal case proceeding in regards to attempting to prove his actual innocence and is not represented for filing a new trial motion.(You can read the rest in the COMPLAINT filing.)


    Brian David Hill v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and U.S. Department of Justice
    Brian D. Hill of USWGO Alternative News has filed a lawsuit against the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. DOJ). It is filed in Federal Court, for the U.S. District Court, for the Western District of Virginia.
    The Judge assigned to the case is named: Judge Jackson L. Kiser, in the Danville division.
    This lawsuit is being filed over the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) on allegations of FOIA violations such as the U.S. Attorney Office of Greensboro, North Carolina, possibly covering up or concealing evidence records which includes the Confession Audio CD and State investigative report. Upon any factual allegation via a factfinder, may be useful as new evidence for a new trial or aid towards ground of Actual Innocence.
    The purpose for the FOIA lawsuit appears to be for attempting to prove Actual Innocence or take it back to a Trial.

    Note to lawyers: The links below go to a subpeona Motion under Rule 45, to the Judge's Clerk asking to subpoena the Attorney that is refusing to give the discovery packet to his own client thus preventing his client from being able to prove his actual innocence.

    The Federal Judge granted plaintiff's MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis.
    Now that means that the U.S. Marshals have to serve the Government with Brian's complaint.
    Also Brian has done another filing asking to subpoena his ex court appointed lawyer from his criminal case since his own freaking lawyer is refusing to give the discovery evidence of his case to his own client, and has threatened to destroy the discovery papers. This is all on Affidavit and other exculpatory evidence. Brian pushed for the Judge to ask the Clerk to sign the subpoena and serve with that lawyer. 3-ORDER from Judge to proceed IFP.pdf - ORDER from Federal Judge granting Plaintiff's IFP motion 4-Motion To Subpoena Attorney.pdf - Motion under Rule 45 to subpoena Attorney John Scott Coalter 4-1-Declaration Of Exhibits Supporting Motion.pdf - Declaration of Exhibits in attachment to this Motion
    Exhibit 1: 4-2-Exhibit 1.pdf
    Exhibit 2: 4-3-Exhibit 2.pdf
    Exhibit 3: 4-4-Exhibit 3.pdf
    Exhibit 4: 4-5-Exhibit 4.pdf
    Exhibit 5: 4-6-Exhibit 5.pdf
    Exhibit 6: 4-7-Exhibit 6.pdf
    Unsigned Subpoena: 4-8-Unsigned Subpoena.pdf
    Envelope Motion contained within: 4-9-Envelope.pdf

    If any lawyers have good advice on this FOIA Lawsuit then please reply and tell me.


  • Sat, May 6 2017 2:51 PM In reply to

    Re: Use of FOIA to obtain criminal discovery packet

    I would urge the plaintiff in the FOIA lawsuit to consult an attorney familiar with federal FOIA claims. The complaint you presented in your post is not well drafted and that could be a problem for the plaintiff going forward. Note that FOIA is not a substitute for discovery in criminal cases. Much of what is subject to discovery in a criminal case is exempt from FOIA. The plaintiff would avoid some of those exemptions by seeking the information from the agency in a Privacy Act (PA) request rather than a FOIA request. In any event, if the DOJ improperly withheld discovery, that is something that ought to be pursued in the criminal case itself. A FOIA or PA request typically takes far too long to resolve to be of any help in a criminal matter and due to the exemptions allowed in FOIA and PA may not get what the defendant needs anyway.

  • Sat, May 6 2017 3:51 PM In reply to

    Re: Use of FOIA to obtain criminal discovery packet

    So if Attorney Coalter refuses to let anybody use the discovery to prove innocence, turns other lawyers away by talking them out of it, even threatened to destroy the evidence and turning other lawyers away has alluded the veiled threat towards preventing his client from proving his innocence, that is why this FOIA lawsuit was filed, well that is what this lawsuit is alluding to as to why it was filed.

    If Brian fails in the FOIA suit, and if the Judge's clerk refuses to grant him the subpoena and all appeals fail, then Brian will likely plan to sue Attorney Coalter for malpractice to prevent him from destroying the discovery evidence.

    The point of the lawsuit is that, the SBI has been known to secretly change details in their criminal investigation reports, their legal counsel is refusing to give Brian a copy.

    If Coalter destroys the evicence then all proof that child porn was downloading for eleven months after his laptop was seized is destroyed thus meaning the defendant will be a sex criminal or offender for a very long time. Even though those dates may be proof of evidence tampering and planting, that could sway a Jury towards a not guilty verdict.

  • Sat, May 6 2017 4:01 PM In reply to

    Re: Use of FOIA to obtain criminal discovery packet

    If you read the article exhibited here:

    You'll get why he was forced to file a lawsuit.

    His lawyer keeps lying to him, making up fictitious rules and refuses to show his client what the rules are. He is working for the Federal Prosecutor and likely doing underhanded stuff with the Feds.

    Brian has filed a lawsuit, giving him subpoena power as long as it is relevant to the case and what he is pursuing in his lawsuit.

    He is going to force his Ex-Attorney to give him his discovery under threat of civil contempt of court.

    Since his lawyer likes to play dirty games for Phil Berger Junior and Phil Berger Senior, to protect Brian's wrongful conviction, Brian has to find a way to legally force his enemy lawyer to give him his discovery whether he wins his FOIA lawsuit or not. He doesn't want a cover up of proof that he was framed with child porn otherwise for the rest of his life he will be nicknamed as a pedophile when he is innocent.

    It is essential that Brian force his corrupt lawyer to get his discovery packet.

    As a Sex Offender Brian cannot go on dating websites, he can't enjoy life anymore, even contemplating suicide as his final option. The Sex Offender laws and treatment are HARSH, CRUEL, and UNUSUAL. John Walsh has his way and Brian is the next false sex offender. I know some people deserve to be Sex Offenders but not Brian. He has a lot of evidence that would cause a Jury to find him innocent but his corrupt lawyer didn't care. :(


    The only way off is for Brian to prove his INNOCENCE. Attorney John Scott Coalter from Greensboro is as corrupt as he can be. These court appointed lawyers don't care if they make you a sex offender, even if your innocent. All they care about is getting the guilty pleas.

Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS

My Community

Community Membership Search Community