U.S. v. BRADFORD, 15-CR-30001-DRH-1. (2015)
Court: District Court, S.D. Illinois
Number: infdco20150928705
Visitors: 23
Filed: Sep. 25, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2015
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . Now before the Court is defendant David L. Bradford's pro se motion to reconsider (Doc. 102) the Court's order denying his motion to suppress (Doc. 101). It is well established that courts have no obligation to consider pro se motions filed by defendants with counsel. See United States v. Rollins, 309 F. App'x 37, 38 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Rollins has no right to file a pro se brief or motion in any court while counsel represents him."); United
Summary: ORDER DAVID R. HERNDON , District Judge . Now before the Court is defendant David L. Bradford's pro se motion to reconsider (Doc. 102) the Court's order denying his motion to suppress (Doc. 101). It is well established that courts have no obligation to consider pro se motions filed by defendants with counsel. See United States v. Rollins, 309 F. App'x 37, 38 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Rollins has no right to file a pro se brief or motion in any court while counsel represents him."); United ..
More
ORDER
DAVID R. HERNDON, District Judge.
Now before the Court is defendant David L. Bradford's pro se motion to reconsider (Doc. 102) the Court's order denying his motion to suppress (Doc. 101). It is well established that courts have no obligation to consider pro se motions filed by defendants with counsel. See United States v. Rollins, 309 F. App'x 37, 38 (7th Cir. 2009) ("Rollins has no right to file a pro se brief or motion in any court while counsel represents him."); United States v. Williams, 495 F.3d 810, 813 (7th Cir. 2007); United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998) ("A defendant does not have an affirmative right to submit a pro se brief when represented by counsel."). In the instant case, defendant is represented by counsel and the Court declines to consider defendant's pro se motion. Should counsel wish to file a motion to reconsider, with his knowledge of the law of evidence, he is fully capable of taking that action.
For the reasons stated herein, the motion to reconsider is DENIED without prejudice. Should counsel choose to file a motion to reconsider, the Court will address the issue at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
