U.S. v. CANADAY, 1:16-cr-00069-LJO-SKO-11. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20170522574
Visitors: 7
Filed: May 19, 2017
Latest Update: May 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT MARKEITH CANADY'S MOTION TO SEVER (Doc. 306) AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS (Doc. 307) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court notes that there are two pending motions filed by Defendant Canady: 1. A Motion to Sever brought under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 8(b) and 14 (Doc. 306); and 2. A Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Doc. 307). Regarding the Motion to Sever, clearly and obviously if this Defendant should not be a part of the trial set in January, 2
Summary: ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT MARKEITH CANADY'S MOTION TO SEVER (Doc. 306) AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS (Doc. 307) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . The Court notes that there are two pending motions filed by Defendant Canady: 1. A Motion to Sever brought under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 8(b) and 14 (Doc. 306); and 2. A Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Doc. 307). Regarding the Motion to Sever, clearly and obviously if this Defendant should not be a part of the trial set in January, 20..
More
ORDER REGARDING DEFENDANT MARKEITH CANADY'S MOTION TO SEVER (Doc. 306) AND MOTION FOR DISCOVERY SANCTIONS (Doc. 307)
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court notes that there are two pending motions filed by Defendant Canady:
1. A Motion to Sever brought under Fed. R. Crim. Pro. 8(b) and 14 (Doc. 306); and
2. A Motion for Discovery Sanctions (Doc. 307).
Regarding the Motion to Sever, clearly and obviously if this Defendant should not be a part of the trial set in January, 2018, the Government, the moving Defendant, all other named defendants, and the Court should know sooner than later. The Court is therefore requesting the Government to respond to this pending motion sooner than later, and not wait until August (when the response would ordinarily be due for a September 11 hearing).
Concerning the Motion for Discovery Sanctions, the Court is trying to preclude a situation where we wait until less than 4 months before trial to determine whether or not key pieces of evidence will in fact be allowed. The Court therefore is requesting from the Government at least an interim statement of whether the requested evidence exists, and if so, whether it has been produced, and finally, if not, why not. The Court requests that interim statement to be filed on or before June 19, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
