UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 20-cr-061-LM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 044 P Jared Stottlar
ORDER Before the court is defendant Jared Stottlar’s motion for discovery (doc. no.
77). The government objects.
In his motion, Stottlar requests four categories of information:
1. Information relating to a news article describing how a suspended Belknap County officer urged the Sheriff to start an internal investigation into Detective Nathaniel Buffington; 2. Copies of Detective Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial hearings, or grand jury proceeding; 3. Unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses; 4. Any information affecting the potential sentence of cooperating witnesses including evidence as to the scope and history regarding their criminal activity. For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part
Stottlar’s motion for discovery.
1. Strafford County Investigative File
Stottlar’s first request relates to Nathanial Buffington, a detective with the
Tilton Police Department whom the government intends to call at trial. As part of
discovery, the government turned over to Stottlar a news article that reported that another officer (a suspended Belknap County officer) urged the Sheriff to start an
internal investigation into Buffington.1 In response, Stottlar requested “any
information” related to the Belknap County officer’s complaint. Doc. no. 78-1 at 3.
The government then obtained and disclosed to Stottlar a letter from the Strafford
County Sheriff’s Office stating that an internal investigation revealed “no wrong
doing on the part of Lt. Nate Buffington of the Tilton Police Department.” Doc. no.
78 at 4.
The government proffers that it has also reviewed the investigative file itself
at the Strafford County Sheriff’s Office. The government asserts that—consistent
with the letter—nothing in the file indicated any wrongdoing by Buffington.
The government contends that it need not provide the investigative file about
Buffington to Stottlar given the letter finding no wrongdoing. In support, it cites
United States v. Bulger, 816 F.3d 137, 151-55 (1st Cir. 2016), for the proposition
that “where allegations of misconduct are found to be false, those materials are not
Brady materials.” Doc. no. 78 at 6. The government overstates Bulger’s holding. In
Bulger, the contested documents were an anonymous letter and an investigative
report relating to potential misconduct by a State Police trooper. Id. at 152. The
district court judge reviewed the documents in camera and ruled that the
government was not required to turn over the materials in part because the
allegations were determined not to be just unsubstantiated, but “false and not
1 See https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/courts_cops/suspended-deputy-
allegesretaliation-harassment/article_9e403236-99ce-11ea-9289-ffd02278fb42.html (last visited March 25, 2022).
2 factual.” Id. at 154. The First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion, but specifically stated that its holding was “limited to the facts of [that]
case.” Id. at 155. The First Circuit went on to state that “[t]o be clear, our
conclusion today by no means suggests that the government can sidestep its Brady
obligations simply by conducting its own investigation and determining that
potentially discoverable allegations are unsubstantiated.” Id. Important to the
First Circuit in affirming the decision in Bulger were (1) the fact that the district
court judge had reviewed the contested materials in camera, and (2) that the
allegations were determined to be not just unsubstantiated, but false.
In contrast, in Stottlar’s case, we know only that the internal investigation
found “no wrong doing on the part of Det. Buffington.” Doc. no. 78-1 at 2. It
remains unclear whether the allegations were determined to be false, or just
unsubstantiated. Thus, the court will examine the investigative file in camera—as
the district court did in Bulger—to ascertain whether it contains Brady material
related to Buffington. The court directs the government to deliver the file to the
clerk’s office by April 4, 2022. The court will review the file in camera, and then
return it to the government.
2. Detective Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial hearings, or grand jury proceeding
Next, Stottlar requests copies of Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial
hearings, or grand jury proceedings. The government has already provided Stottlar
with transcripts from two other federal trials (United States v. Gauthier and United
3 States v. Hardy). But Stottlar’s request appears to include transcripts of any court
proceeding in which Buffington testified at any time pertaining to any topic.
Statements by government witnesses “in the possession of the United States
which relate[] to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified” are
discoverable. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). As the government points out, it is not required
to provide the additional transcripts Stottlar requests because (1) they are not
within the government’s control, (2) Stottlar has not demonstrated how they are
related to the subject matter about which Buffington will testify at trial, and (3) the
government does not have knowledge of all the state proceedings where Buffington
has testified.
The court agrees with the government and denies Stottlar’s request. Stottlar
has not shown why the government should be required to disclose any additional
Buffington transcripts.
3. Unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses Third, Stottlar requests unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses.
Even though the government asserts that no cooperating witnesses will be
testifying at trial, Stottlar contends that this information would go not only to the
credibility of any cooperating witnesses, but also to the credibility of police
witnesses.
Stottlar’s request appears to be in reference to a series of events at the
criminal trial of Crystal Hardy and Christopher Kelly. A witness, J.M., testified
that he heard the defendants call Stottlar to buy drugs, and then witnessed Stottlar
4 deliver the drugs. The jury found both Hardy and Kelly guilty, but those
convictions were later vacated and then dismissed with prejudice after it came to
light that the interaction about which J.M. testified could not have taken place on
the date he alleged, because he had been incarcerated on that date. The court
granted the government’s motion to dismiss with prejudice but noted that it did not
find that the government had knowingly offered perjured testimony.
Stottlar now hypothesizes that the source of the false information to which
J.M. testified could have been Buffington, because Buffington participated in J.M.’s
third interview, where J.M. first mentioned the drug sale.
The government asserts that it has already provided the defendant with
reports relating to various individuals. See doc. no. 78 at 7 (stating the government
has provided the defendant with reports related to K.M. and J.W.); doc. no. 78-1 at 3
(stating the government has produced reports related to K.M. and J.M.).
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
United States of America
v. Criminal No. 20-cr-061-LM Opinion No. 2022 DNH 044 P Jared Stottlar
ORDER Before the court is defendant Jared Stottlar’s motion for discovery (doc. no.
77). The government objects.
In his motion, Stottlar requests four categories of information:
1. Information relating to a news article describing how a suspended Belknap County officer urged the Sheriff to start an internal investigation into Detective Nathaniel Buffington; 2. Copies of Detective Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial hearings, or grand jury proceeding; 3. Unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses; 4. Any information affecting the potential sentence of cooperating witnesses including evidence as to the scope and history regarding their criminal activity. For the reasons that follow, the court grants in part and denies in part
Stottlar’s motion for discovery.
1. Strafford County Investigative File
Stottlar’s first request relates to Nathanial Buffington, a detective with the
Tilton Police Department whom the government intends to call at trial. As part of
discovery, the government turned over to Stottlar a news article that reported that another officer (a suspended Belknap County officer) urged the Sheriff to start an
internal investigation into Buffington.1 In response, Stottlar requested “any
information” related to the Belknap County officer’s complaint. Doc. no. 78-1 at 3.
The government then obtained and disclosed to Stottlar a letter from the Strafford
County Sheriff’s Office stating that an internal investigation revealed “no wrong
doing on the part of Lt. Nate Buffington of the Tilton Police Department.” Doc. no.
78 at 4.
The government proffers that it has also reviewed the investigative file itself
at the Strafford County Sheriff’s Office. The government asserts that—consistent
with the letter—nothing in the file indicated any wrongdoing by Buffington.
The government contends that it need not provide the investigative file about
Buffington to Stottlar given the letter finding no wrongdoing. In support, it cites
United States v. Bulger, 816 F.3d 137, 151-55 (1st Cir. 2016), for the proposition
that “where allegations of misconduct are found to be false, those materials are not
Brady materials.” Doc. no. 78 at 6. The government overstates Bulger’s holding. In
Bulger, the contested documents were an anonymous letter and an investigative
report relating to potential misconduct by a State Police trooper. Id. at 152. The
district court judge reviewed the documents in camera and ruled that the
government was not required to turn over the materials in part because the
allegations were determined not to be just unsubstantiated, but “false and not
1 See https://www.laconiadailysun.com/news/courts_cops/suspended-deputy-
allegesretaliation-harassment/article_9e403236-99ce-11ea-9289-ffd02278fb42.html (last visited March 25, 2022).
2 factual.” Id. at 154. The First Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its
discretion, but specifically stated that its holding was “limited to the facts of [that]
case.” Id. at 155. The First Circuit went on to state that “[t]o be clear, our
conclusion today by no means suggests that the government can sidestep its Brady
obligations simply by conducting its own investigation and determining that
potentially discoverable allegations are unsubstantiated.” Id. Important to the
First Circuit in affirming the decision in Bulger were (1) the fact that the district
court judge had reviewed the contested materials in camera, and (2) that the
allegations were determined to be not just unsubstantiated, but false.
In contrast, in Stottlar’s case, we know only that the internal investigation
found “no wrong doing on the part of Det. Buffington.” Doc. no. 78-1 at 2. It
remains unclear whether the allegations were determined to be false, or just
unsubstantiated. Thus, the court will examine the investigative file in camera—as
the district court did in Bulger—to ascertain whether it contains Brady material
related to Buffington. The court directs the government to deliver the file to the
clerk’s office by April 4, 2022. The court will review the file in camera, and then
return it to the government.
2. Detective Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial hearings, or grand jury proceeding
Next, Stottlar requests copies of Buffington’s testimony at any trial, pre-trial
hearings, or grand jury proceedings. The government has already provided Stottlar
with transcripts from two other federal trials (United States v. Gauthier and United
3 States v. Hardy). But Stottlar’s request appears to include transcripts of any court
proceeding in which Buffington testified at any time pertaining to any topic.
Statements by government witnesses “in the possession of the United States
which relate[] to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified” are
discoverable. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). As the government points out, it is not required
to provide the additional transcripts Stottlar requests because (1) they are not
within the government’s control, (2) Stottlar has not demonstrated how they are
related to the subject matter about which Buffington will testify at trial, and (3) the
government does not have knowledge of all the state proceedings where Buffington
has testified.
The court agrees with the government and denies Stottlar’s request. Stottlar
has not shown why the government should be required to disclose any additional
Buffington transcripts.
3. Unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses Third, Stottlar requests unredacted statements from cooperating witnesses.
Even though the government asserts that no cooperating witnesses will be
testifying at trial, Stottlar contends that this information would go not only to the
credibility of any cooperating witnesses, but also to the credibility of police
witnesses.
Stottlar’s request appears to be in reference to a series of events at the
criminal trial of Crystal Hardy and Christopher Kelly. A witness, J.M., testified
that he heard the defendants call Stottlar to buy drugs, and then witnessed Stottlar
4 deliver the drugs. The jury found both Hardy and Kelly guilty, but those
convictions were later vacated and then dismissed with prejudice after it came to
light that the interaction about which J.M. testified could not have taken place on
the date he alleged, because he had been incarcerated on that date. The court
granted the government’s motion to dismiss with prejudice but noted that it did not
find that the government had knowingly offered perjured testimony.
Stottlar now hypothesizes that the source of the false information to which
J.M. testified could have been Buffington, because Buffington participated in J.M.’s
third interview, where J.M. first mentioned the drug sale.
The government asserts that it has already provided the defendant with
reports relating to various individuals. See doc. no. 78 at 7 (stating the government
has provided the defendant with reports related to K.M. and J.W.); doc. no. 78-1 at 3
(stating the government has produced reports related to K.M. and J.M.).
If there are any reports that tend to show that Buffington planted Stottlar’s
name in J.M.’s mind, that would likely be Brady material subject to disclosure. But
absent that, Stottlar has not shown why he is entitled to any additional statements
by individuals who will not be testifying at trial. To the extent there exist reports
that tend to show that Buffington planted Stottler’s name in J.M.’s mind, the
government must turn those over. Otherwise Stottlar’s request is denied.
5 4. Any information affecting the potential sentence of cooperating witnesses including evidence as to the scope and history regarding their criminal activity. As the government points out, the purpose of providing a defendant with
information affecting the potential sentence of a trial witness is so the defense can
explore the witness’s bias. Because the government is not calling any “cooperating
witnesses,” it is unclear what information Stottlar seeks and how it would be
relevant to his trial. The court denies Stottlar’s request.
CONCLUSION
Stottlar’s motion for discovery (doc. no. 77) is granted in part. The court
directs the government to deliver the Strafford County Investigative File to the
clerk’s office by April 4, 2022. The court will review the file in camera, determine if
it contains exculpatory evidence, and then return it to the government. The court
denies all Stottlar’s other requests. This ruling does not, however, in any way
diminish the government’s standard obligations under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S.
83 (1963); see also LR 16.1 (setting routine process of disclosing Brady material).
SO ORDERED.
__________________________ Landya McCafferty United States District Judge March 30, 2022 cc: Counsel of Record.