USA v. Fields, 13-cr-198T-24TGW. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20171220c73
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 19, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 19, 2017
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Andrew Fields' motion requesting the Court to amend a prior order. (Doc. 192). Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court amend its September 18, 2013 order denying Defendant's amended second motion in limine (Doc. 49) so that this order does not refer to the victims of Defendant's crimes as "minors." Defendant purports that this order has been published on the Lexis electronic legal database and h
Summary: ORDER SUSAN C. BUCKLEW , District Judge . This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Andrew Fields' motion requesting the Court to amend a prior order. (Doc. 192). Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court amend its September 18, 2013 order denying Defendant's amended second motion in limine (Doc. 49) so that this order does not refer to the victims of Defendant's crimes as "minors." Defendant purports that this order has been published on the Lexis electronic legal database and ha..
More
ORDER
SUSAN C. BUCKLEW, District Judge.
This cause comes before the Court on Defendant Andrew Fields' motion requesting the Court to amend a prior order. (Doc. 192). Specifically, Defendant requests that the Court amend its September 18, 2013 order denying Defendant's amended second motion in limine (Doc. 49) so that this order does not refer to the victims of Defendant's crimes as "minors." Defendant purports that this order has been published on the Lexis electronic legal database and has caused Defendant to be assaulted in prison.
In support of this request, Defendant points to the Court's August 16, 2013 order on Defendant's motion in limine (Doc. 25) in which the Court precluded the Government from referring to Defendant's victims as "minors" at trial. Defendant argues that because the Court ordered the Government not to refer to the victims of Defendant's crimes as "minors" at trial, the Court should not have referred to them as "minors" in any subsequent order. But Defendant appears to misinterpret the scope of the ruling in this order, which is limited only to the Government's presentation of its case at trial. The order does not prohibit the Court or the Government from referring to the victims of Defendant's crimes as "minors" in other pleadings and orders. Accordingly, Defendant's motion is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
