Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. JOHNSON, 14 CR 390. (2014)

Court: District Court, N.D. Illinois Number: infdco20141110746 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 07, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 07, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM ORDER MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge. As promised, counsel for co-defendants Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang have joined in a motion to dismiss the indictment in which their clients have been charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. 43(a)(2)(C), 43(a) and 43(b)(2)(A), the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ("Act"). Because the obvious next step in this litigation is for the United States to file a memorandum in opposition to that motion challenging the constitutionality of the Ac
More

MEMORANDUM ORDER

MILTON I. SHADUR, Senior District Judge.

As promised, counsel for co-defendants Kevin Johnson and Tyler Lang have joined in a motion to dismiss the indictment in which their clients have been charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 43(a)(2)(C), 43(a) and 43(b)(2)(A), the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act ("Act"). Because the obvious next step in this litigation is for the United States to file a memorandum in opposition to that motion challenging the constitutionality of the Act, that would appear to obviate the need to conduct the next scheduled status hearing set for of November 12 unless any party wishes to bring some other aspect of the case before this Court (in which event counsel should communicate with opposing counsel and this Court's courtroom deputy to keep the November 12 status hearing in place). Accordingly that hearing date is vacated.

Instead this Court will await notification from government counsel as to how much time they need to file their response. Needless to say, given the length of defendants' supporting memorandum (filed pursuant to leave previously granted by this Court), the government is also granted leave to exceed the LR 7.1 page limitation. Finally, with time having been excluded for Speedy Trial Act purposes through November 12 under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii), time thereafter will be further excluded on an open ended basis under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) until further order of this Court.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer