WARREN — With an Aug. 17 trial set for Kaprise and Thomas Sledge in Cleveland Federal Court in the March 2, 2024, shooting death of U.S. Postal Service carrier Jonte Davis, 33, in Warren, the defense and prosecution are wrangling over evidence.

The Sledges are charged federally with murder of a federal employee and discharging a firearm during a violent crime in the 1:44 p.m. homicide. If convicted, both could receive life in prison. No decision has been announced by the government on whether it will seek the death penalty. Judge Donald C. Nugent in Cleveland is presiding over the case.

Late this week, federal prosecutors responded to several motions filed Jan. 23 by attorneys for Kaprise Sledge, 25, of Warren, and Thomas Sledge, 45, of Youngstown, that asked for prosecutors to turn over information specific to the defendants that might help or hurt their case, information regarding the defendants’ history and background, and information regarding confidential informants or cooperating witnesses.

One motion cites the Fifth Amendment right to due process and other rights to enable the Sledges to defend against information prosecutors have regarding prior convictions and “bad acts”; information that is either favorable or not favorable to the Sledges; and facts relating to the credibility of law enforcement personnel.

DEFENDANTS’ PAST HISTORY

One defense filing asks that prosecutors provide information in its possession that might bear upon the defendants’ past history. Federal law permits certain types of evidence to be presented that talks about a defendant’s prior history of other crimes, wrongs or acts, but not such evidence that suggests the defendant has a “propensity” toward improper conduct.

The law allows such background if it addresses issues such as “motive, intent, knowledge” and identity, for instance, as long as it is “relevant to a genuine, material issue in dispute,” and its value as evidence is not “substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice” to the defendant, the filing states.

The filing notes that case law requires a judge to allow the defense to “test the government’s theories” by enabling the defense to know the “general nature” of such evidence and determine it is admissible at trial.

It states that concerns about such information are magnified in a case that could result in the death penalty.

In response to the filing, federal prosecutors stated in a Thursday filing that the attorney for Thomas Sledge requested that the prosecutors provide details of “other crimes, wrongs or acts,” and provide the information “immediately.” But the filing argues that “such a request is premature and should be denied.”

The prosecution filing states that the defense has requested “numerous items” that exceed what is required under federal law. Among them is “all factual details of other acts (committed by the defendants) known to the prosecution, the names of witnesses who will lay the foundation” for such information, and “the identification of witnesses the prosecution intends to rely upon at trial.” It asks Nugent to deny such requests.

The prosecution filing states that the trial of the Sledges was previously set for Feb. 17, but on Jan. 27, the defense asked for the trial to be postponed, and Nugent postponed it the next day.

The prosecution filing states that Nugent has discretion to determine what is a “reasonable” time to turn over the “other crimes” evidence based on the circumstances of the case. It states that prosecutors believe the defendant’s demand for the information “five months prior to trial is not reasonable.” Neither defendant provided any grounds that would require the government to make such disclosures any more than 30 days before the trial date, prosecutors stated.

The defense filed its motion Jan. 23 that asked for the prosecution to turn over the “other crimes, wrongs or acts” information — about three weeks before the February trial date, the prosecution filing noted.

“The fact that the defendants previously did not request disclosure of (other acts) material until approximately one month before the February trial date demonstrates that an earlier time frame would (not) be unnecessary,” the prosecution filing adds. The filing suggested that some courts have required prosecutors to turn over such information no more than one week before the trial.

FAVORABLE TO DEFENSE

Another defense motion asks that prosecutors turn over information to the defense regarding felony convictions involving witnesses to be called at trial by prosecutors. It also asks that information be provided on bad acts attributed to each prosecution witness and information on promises of immunity given or similar benefits to witnesses. And it asks for instances in which such witnesses have testified in the past.

The prosecution response states that with the trial still five months away, there is still “ample time for the government” to provide additional evidence to the defense “as (prosecutors) finalize their witness list.” It adds that “In accordance with its legal obligations, the government will provide additional” information to the defense “in a timely manner.”

CONFIDENTIAL INFORMANTS

Another defense filing asks Nugent to require the prosecution to “disclose the identity of any confidential informants or cooperating witnesses used in this investigation and prosecution.” It also asks for details of all agreements and inducements offered to such “informants and cooperators.”

The motion is “grounded in the Fifth Amendment right to due process and the Sixth Amendment right to confront and effectively cross examine adverse witnesses,” the filing states.

The prosecution response states that Nugent held a hearing in August of 2025 to consider similar motions and concluded that the defendants “are not legally entitled to discover the identity or statements of ‘cooperating’ witnesses at (that) stage of the proceedings.”

The prosecution filing adds neither motion by either defendant “identifies any statutory or other legal authority requiring the disclosure of confidential informants or cooperating witnesses at this time — approximately five months before the trial scheduled for Aug. 17, 2026.”