22 undercover agents. There are also several recordings (N-23, N-35, and N-80) that were not  produced to the defense but are referred to in produced DEA reports. The defense has requested these recordings but the government has not provided them. For example, N-80 concerns conversations between an unindicted co-conspirator and government informants while on the trip to Suriname where Bouterse was introduced to the informants. Accordingly, these recordings should be produced as they involve conversations between an unindicted co-conspirator and the government’s agents and confidential sources during the time period charged in the indictment.

DEA Operational File

Bouterse has requested that the government provide him with all budgetary and authority records regarding his case, and the operational file from the Drug Enforcement Agency or any federal agency directly or indirectly involved in the investigation against him and his unindicted alleged co-conspirators.

Counsel’s Dec

l. at ¶ 12. A review of the file would allow the defense to determine if the confidential sources or agents involved in the case operated outside their budget and authority, or inapposite to DEA regulations. Such divergence from proper procedure is discoverable under Rule 16 to discover whether the DEA and/or its operatives violated any federal statute or regulation in its investigation leading to this indictment.

POINT V BOUTERSE REQUESTS DISCLOSURE OF BRADY MATERIAL

In Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963), the Supreme Court held “that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due  process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good

faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” The Court later refined this ruling, holding that the duty to

disclose such evidence is applicable even if there has been no request by the accused

POINT VIII BOUTERSE REQUESTS LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL MOTIONS

The defendant requests leave to file additional motions if made necessary by subsequent disclosures. Dated: New York, New York March 28, 2014 Respectfully submitted,  _/s/______________________________ JOSE M. ARRUFAT-GRACIA, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

Arrufat Gracia PLLC 130 West 42nd Street, Suite 705  New York, New York 10036 RICHARD H. ROSENBERG, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

217 Broadway, Suite 707  New York, New York 10007 MICHAEL O. HUESTON, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

350 Fifth Avenue, Suite 4810  New York, New York 10118 FLORIAN MIEDEL, ESQ.

Attorney for Defendant

Miedel & Mysliwiec LLP Trinity Centre 111 Broadway, Suite 1401  New York, New York 10006 To: Adam Fee, Michael Lockard and Edward Kim (by ecf)

Assistant United States Attorneys

Case 1:13-cr-00635-SAS Document 27 Filed 03/28/14 Page 30 of 30

Also, read our previous article on this topic HERE