U.S. v. Mota, 1:18-CR-0035 LJO. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190606d16
Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 03, 2019
Latest Update: Jun. 03, 2019
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . On May 7, 2019, Defendant Jonathan Mota ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of one count of attempting to kill a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1114. ECF No. 181. Defendant represented himself at trial, ECF Nos. 173, and has chosen to remain pro per for purposes of sentencing. See ECF No. 182. Sentencing is set for July 29, 2019. ECF No. 178. Before the Court for decision i
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . On May 7, 2019, Defendant Jonathan Mota ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of one count of attempting to kill a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1114. ECF No. 181. Defendant represented himself at trial, ECF Nos. 173, and has chosen to remain pro per for purposes of sentencing. See ECF No. 182. Sentencing is set for July 29, 2019. ECF No. 178. Before the Court for decision is..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S REQUEST FOR TRIAL TRANSCRIPTS
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
On May 7, 2019, Defendant Jonathan Mota ("Defendant") was convicted by a jury of one count of attempting to kill a federal officer, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1114. ECF No. 181. Defendant represented himself at trial, ECF Nos. 173, and has chosen to remain pro per for purposes of sentencing. See ECF No. 182. Sentencing is set for July 29, 2019. ECF No. 178. Before the Court for decision is Defendant's request that trial transcripts be produced and provided to him for purposes of refuting assertions Defendant anticipates will be made by the Probation Office and the United States during sentencing. ECF No. 186.
As of the date of this Order, the trial transcripts have not been finalized by the Court Reporter or requested by the government. The provision of transcripts at government expense to a criminal defendant proceeding in pro per is normally governed by 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), which provides:
Each reporter may charge and collect fees for transcripts requested by the parties, including the United States, at rates prescribed by the court subject to the approval of the Judicial Conference. He shall not charge a fee for any copy of a transcript delivered to the clerk for the records of court. Fees for transcripts furnished in criminal proceedings to persons proceeding under the Criminal Justice Act (18 U.S.C. 3006A), or in habeas corpus proceedings to persons allowed to sue, defend, or appeal in forma pauperis, shall be paid by the United States out of moneys appropriated for those purposes. Fees for transcripts furnished in proceedings brought under section 2255 of this title to persons permitted to sue or appeal in forma pauperis shall be paid by the United States out of money appropriated for that purpose if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal. Fees for transcripts furnished in other proceedings to persons permitted to appeal in forma pauperis shall also be paid by the United States if the trial judge or a circuit judge certifies that the appeal is not frivolous (but presents a substantial question). The reporter may require any party requesting a transcript to prepay the estimated fee in advance except as to transcripts that are to be paid for by the United States.
Pursuant to this provision, trial transcripts are provided to indigent defendants at government expense for purposes of appeal, so long as a judge certifies the appeal is "not frivolous." However, the request here is for the provision of trial transcripts to defendant in advance of sentencing for the purpose of preparing for sentencing. This is a highly unusual request. Sentencing proceedings do not involve retrials of the facts of the underlying conviction. Therefore, the Court cannot envision how the trial transcripts will be relevant to any dispute that may arise at sentencing. The request is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
