Elawyers Elawyers
Illinois| Change

U.S. v. Castro, 15-cr-20200. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20190320c55 Visitors: 11
Filed: Mar. 19, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 19, 2019
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL [318] AND GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS [308] LAURIE J. MICHELSON , District Judge . The defendant remaining for trial, Chaka Castro, has been charged in a Second Superseding Indictment with, among other things, participating in a RICO conspiracy to commit a series of home robberies and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. ( See R. 96.) After sever
More

ORDER GRANTING IN PART GOVERNMENT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL [318] AND GRANTING MOTION IN LIMINE TO INTRODUCE DEFENDANT'S STATEMENTS [308]

The defendant remaining for trial, Chaka Castro, has been charged in a Second Superseding Indictment with, among other things, participating in a RICO conspiracy to commit a series of home robberies and aiding and abetting the use of a firearm in relation to a crime of violence. (See R. 96.)

After several adjournments, the parties were ready once again to start trial on March 11, 2019. But one week prior, on March 4, 2019, one of the three Government lawyers on the trial team learned that her father had passed away. A few days later, she resigned from the trial team that she had been a part of for four years. And the Government then filed an Emergency Motion to Continue Trial for 90 days.

For the reasons stated more fully on the record on March 18, 2019 during the Court's oral ruling, the Government's motion is GRANTED IN PART. The trial is hereby rescheduled for May 7, 2019 at 8:30 am. The joint jury instructions and verdict form shall be submitted no later than April 22, 2019 and exhibit binders by April 30, 2019.

Also for the reasons set forth in the Government's motion and the Court's ruling, the time period from March 25, 2019, through May 7, 2019, shall be deemed excludable delay under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court finds, specifically in consideration of 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), that the ends of justice served by allowing a more limited continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

It is further ordered for the reasons stated on the record that the Government's Motion in Limine to Allow Government to Introduce Defendant's Statements (ECF No. 308) is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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