United States District Court, N.D. Indiana, Hammond Division
OPINION AND ORDER
P. SIMON, JUDGE
the Court are a slew of motions that were filed by Defendant
Jeremiah Farmer during the short period of time in which he
opted to represent himself in this matter. After several of
his motions were denied by the Court, Farmer filed a notice
of appeal as to some of those rulings. The Seventh Circuit
dismissed his appeal on June 11, 2018, and his remaining
motions are now ripe for my review. I will address each
motion in turn.
was indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with
conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d) and conspiracy with
intent to distribute and to distribute cocaine, marijuana,
and alprazolam in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. After
having been appointed 3 different attorneys, on October 25,
2017, the Magistrate Judge granted Farmer's request to
represent himself in this matter. Following his
attorney's withdrawal, Farmer filed numerous motions
seeking to dismiss the indictment against him. On January 26,
2018, after a hearing, the Magistrate Judge appointed yet
another attorney for Farmer. He is now represented and is
scheduled to proceed to trial later this year.
first motion, titled “Affidavit for Truth and Belief,
” raises several grounds which Farmer believes warrant
dismissal of the indictment. [DE 1130.] From what I can glean
from his motion, Farmer first appears to be alleging that
there was a problem with the summoning of the grand jury. But
Farmer simply recites “Criminal Procedure 18.3322
Chapter 216” and relays several requirements of a grand
jury. It's not at all clear to me what he's saying
happened with respect to his particular case. If he is
alleging that the grand jury was not properly constituted, he
has presented absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support
Farmer says there is no evidence to prove he engaged in
racketeering. Whether that statement is true or not is for a
jury to decide. Third, Farmer claims he has been denied his
Rule 16(a)(1) material. But the government has repeatedly
represented to the Court that it has complied with all of its
discovery obligations. Those assurances are sufficient.
See Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 283 n.23
(1999). Fourth, Farmer claims he has been denied access to
the courts, thereby denying him due process and equal
protection. I'm not sure what this means. By filing all
of his own motions, he clearly has had access to the courts.
also claims he has received ineffective assistance of counsel
because his prior attorneys would not file certain motions
that Farmer wished for them to file. However, Farmer was
allowed to proceed pro se for as long as he wanted,
until he requested another attorney. As I explained earlier,
he has now been appointed four different attorneys. He is
currently represented by counsel, and this has removed any
possibility of prejudice resulting from his attorneys'
in this motion, Farmer requests a hearing to challenge the
truthfulness of factual statements made by “the
affiant.” I'm not sure who the affiant is or what
Farmer is specifically alleging here. Because he also claims
that the “Grant Jury and Courts” violated the
Fourth Amendment, it may be that Farmer is trying to request
a Franks hearing. “[W]hen a defendant makes a
substantial preliminary showing that the police procured a
warrant to search his property with deliberate or reckless
misrepresentations in the warrant affidavit, and where such
statements were necessary to the finding of probable cause,
the Fourth Amendment entitles the defendant to an evidentiary
hearing to show the warrant was invalid.” United
States v. McMurtey, 704 F.3d 502, 504 (7th Cir. 2013).
Conclusory allegations do not entitle a defendant to a
hearing. Id. at 509. Farmer here makes only
conclusory allegations and does not even specify what
allegedly misleading or false statement or omission was
included in a warrant. That does not entitle him to a
Farmer's second motion concerns his desire to see the
grand jury materials. [DE 1142.] Farmer also claims that the
grand jury was not legally drawn because the jurors were not
qualified. Grand jury proceedings are presumptively secret.
However, the Court may authorize disclosure of a grand jury
matter at the request of a defendant who shows that a ground
may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that
occurred before the grand jury. Fed. R. Crim. P.
6(e)(3)(E)(ii). The burden is on the defendant to show that
disclosure of the grand jury transcripts is appropriate.
Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360
U.S. 395, 400 (1959). A defendant must demonstrate a
“compelling necessity” or a “particularized
need” that is sufficient to overcome the important
interest in securing grand jury secrecy. United States v.
Lisinski, 728 F.2d 887, 893 (7th Cir. 1984).
Unsubstantiated and speculative assertions of prosecutorial
misconduct are not sufficient. See United States v.
Ferreboeuf, 632 F.2d 832, 835 (9th Cir. 1980); see
also United States v. Griggs, 2010 WL 4630841, at *6
(N.D. Ind. Nov. 3, 2010). That is all Farmer has presented
here, and therefore his request is denied.
next motion is incoherent. He asks for the Court's help
in investigating “a conspiracy theory within the
government, judges, AUSA, public defenders in U.S.
court.” [DE 1146.] It's not at all clear to me what
this means. This Court does not investigate conspiracy
theories. There are many other arguments raised in this
motion, but I have rejected each and every one of them in my
prior orders, so I will not rehash Farmer's arguments
repeats his request for the Court's help in investigating
this “conspiracy theory” by appointing a private
investigator in his next motion. [DE 1147.] He alleges a host
of constitutional violations, including violations of his
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth and Tenth
Amendment rights. Again, I have addressed, and rejected, all
of the specific arguments Farmer has raised in past motions
concerning his alleged violations of his constitutional
rights. Likewise, as I said above, there is no procedure for
Farmer to request this Court to appoint a private
investigator to look into Farmer's allegations that the
judges, prosecutors, and defenders are in a conspiracy
next motion filed by Farmer [DE 1150] actually raises four
specific grounds on which he seeks relief. First, he argues
the prosecutor has failed to turn over Brady
material. I have already rejected this argument on the basis
that the government has represented to this Court that it has
complied with its Brady obligations.
Farmer says that the prosecutor has engaged in misconduct by
employing improper investigative techniques. Specifically,
Farmer challenges the composition of the grand jury and the
jurors' qualifications. For the reasons stated above,
this argument is meritless.
Farmer essentially argues that his prior counsel were
ineffective and that this has prejudiced his plea bargaining.
He also takes issue with his prior attorneys' failure to
file motions that Farmer wanted them to file. I have
explained many, many times before: Farmer was allowed to
proceed in this matter pro se. During this time,
Farmer filed motion after motion asking for various forms of
relief. There is no evidence that his prior attorneys'
failure to file his motions prejudiced him since he
ultimately got to file them himself.
Farmer claims that the government has engaged in
“manipulation of the charges, even if no bad
faith.” Again, it's not clear to me exactly what
Farmer is claiming. He says that the charges are frivolous