Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.05
A reasonable charge may be made to cover the actual costs of reproduction, but no charges may be assessed to a defendant who is:
Minn. R. Crim. P. 9.05
Comment-Rule 9
Rule 9, with Rules 7.01, 19.04, subd. 6, and 18.04, subds. 1 and 2 (recorded testimony of grand jury witnesses), provide a comprehensive method of discovery of the prosecution (Rule 9.01) and defense (Rule 9.02) cases. The rules are intended to give the parties complete discovery subject to constitutional limitations.
The object of the rules is to complete discovery procedures so far as possible by the Omnibus Hearing under Rule 11, which will be held within 42 days after the defendant's first appearance in court following a complaint under Rule 5, where the Rule 5 and Rule 8 appearances are not consolidated, or within 7 days after the first appearance in district court following an indictment (Rule 19.04), and that all issues arising from the discovery process, including the need for additional discovery, will be resolved at the Omnibus Hearing (Rules 11.04; 9.01, subd. 2; 9.03, subd. 8).
Rule 9.01, subd. 1 provides generally for access by defense counsel to unprotected materials in the prosecution file, and also for numerous specific disclosures that must be made by the prosecutor on defense request. The general "open file" policy established by the rule is based on Unif.R.Crim.P. 421(a) (1987). Of course, this "open file" policy does not require the prosecuting attorney to give defense counsel access to any information that would be deemed non-discoverable under Rule 9.01, subd. 3.
Rule 9.01 does not require any specific form of request. It is anticipated that the discovery provided for by Rule 9.01, subd. 1, as well as the disclosures required of the defense by Rule 9.02 without order of court, will be accomplished informally between the prosecutor and defense counsel.
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(1)(a), forbidding comment to the jury on the fact that a person was named on the list of prosecution witnesses, is not intended to affect any right defense counsel may have under existing law to comment concerning the prosecution's failure to call a particular witness, but prevents defense counsel from commenting that the witness was on the prosecution's list.
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(3)(f) permits the defendant to obtain grand jury transcripts possessed by the prosecutor. If the defendant wants portions of the grand jury record not yet transcribed or possessed by the prosecutor, a request must be made under Rule 18.04.
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(4) permits discovery of reports of examinations and tests. If a test or experiment done by the prosecution does not destroy the evidence and preclude further tests or experiments, it is not necessary under this rule to notify the defendant or to allow a defense expert to observe the test or experiment.
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(5) provides for the reciprocal discovery of the criminal records of any defense witness disclosed to the prosecution under Rule 9.02, subd. 1(3). Under Rule 9.03, subd. 2, a continuing duty exists to disclose this information through trial. If the prosecutor intends to impeach the defendant or any defense witnesses with evidence of prior convictions the prosecutor is required by State v. Wenberg, 289 N.W.2d 503, 504-05 (Minn.1980) to request a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of this evidence under the Rules of Evidence. The pretrial hearing may be made a part of the Omnibus Hearing under Rule 11 or the pretrial conference under Rule 12.
Rule 9.01, subd. 1(7) requires the prosecutor to disclose to the defendant or defense counsel all evidence not otherwise disclosed on which the prosecutor intends to rely in seeking an aggravated sentence under Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004).
The requirement under Rule 9.02, subd. 1(1)(e) to disclose reports on prospective jurors does not require disclosure of opinions or conclusions concerning jurors given by persons assisting counsel on the case. Such material would be protected as work product under Rule 9.02, subd. 3.
The provision in Rule 9.02, subd. 1(4)(d) that defense counsel and the defendant disclose the substance of any oral statements obtained from persons whom the defendant intends to call at the trial is not intended to support a claim that if counsel or the defendant interviewed the witness without a third party present that defense counsel can be disqualified in order to permit counsel to testify to any discrepancy between the oral statement disclosed and the witness's trial testimony, or that if the defendant declines to testify to the discrepancy that the witness's testimony should be stricken. Other solutions should be sought, such as stipulating that in the interview that counsel or the defendant conducted, the witness made the statement the prosecutor now seeks to impeach.
Rule 9.02, subd. 1(5) requires written notice of any defense - other than not guilty - on which the defendant intends to rely at the trial, along with the names and addresses of the witnesses the defendant intends to call at the trial. The defendant is not required to indicate the witnesses intended to be used for each defense except for the defense of alibi (Rule 9.02, subd. 1(7)).
Rule 9.02, subd. 2 regulates orders for nontestimonial identification or other procedures. This rule applies after a defendant has been charged. Precharging nontestimonial procedures are usually accomplished by search warrant.
Following the charging of a felony or gross misdemeanor, the order may be obtained at the first appearance of the defendant under Rule 4.02, subd. 5(1), and Rule 5, or at or before the Omnibus Hearing under Rule 11. The order may be obtained from the district court at any time before trial, but preferably at or before the Omnibus Hearing.
In making protective orders under Rule 9.03, subd. 5 or in ruling on motions to compel discovery under Rules 9.01, subd. 2, and 9.03, subd. 8, the court may avail itself of Rule 9.03, subds. 6 and 7 authorizing in camera proceedings and excision.
Under Rule 9.04 the prosecutor should reveal not only the reports physically in the prosecutor's possession, but also those concerning the case that are in the possession of the police.
In those rare cases where additional discovery is considered necessary by either party, it shall be by consent of the parties or by motion to the court. In such cases it is expected that the parties and the court will be guided by the extensive discovery provisions of these rules. Rule 9 provides guidelines for deciding any such motions, but they are not mandatory and the decision is within the discretion of the district court judge. State v. Davis, 592 N.W.2d 457, 459 (Minn. 1999).
Under Rule 9.05, the provision of the rule permitting free copies to public defenders and attorneys working for a public defense corporation under Minn. Stat. § 611.216 is in accord with Minn. Stat. § 611.271.