Filed: Oct. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2018
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE , District Judge . The matter before the court is Defendant Richard Leroy Parker's pro se "Motion for New Trial" ("Motion") (docket no. 181), which he filed on October 15, 2018. In the Motion, Defendant seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Motion at 1. Defendant argues that "the testimony of Officer Matt Walker at [the] trial, amount[ed] to newly discovered evidence in regards to the evidentiary hearing for [the] [m]otion to [s]uppress, in violati
Summary: ORDER LINDA R. READE , District Judge . The matter before the court is Defendant Richard Leroy Parker's pro se "Motion for New Trial" ("Motion") (docket no. 181), which he filed on October 15, 2018. In the Motion, Defendant seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Motion at 1. Defendant argues that "the testimony of Officer Matt Walker at [the] trial, amount[ed] to newly discovered evidence in regards to the evidentiary hearing for [the] [m]otion to [s]uppress, in violatio..
More
ORDER
LINDA R. READE, District Judge.
The matter before the court is Defendant Richard Leroy Parker's pro se "Motion for New Trial" ("Motion") (docket no. 181), which he filed on October 15, 2018. In the Motion, Defendant seeks a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. See Motion at 1. Defendant argues that "the testimony of Officer Matt Walker at [the] trial, amount[ed] to newly discovered evidence in regards to the evidentiary hearing for [the] [m]otion to [s]uppress, in violation of [his] constitutional right to be free from `unreasonable seizures.'" Id. at 2. Specifically, Defendant asserts that, at the trial, "Officer Walker testified that he had [no] suspicion of the Defendant in their encounter." Id. (alteration in original). Defendant contends that Officer Walker's testimony was inconsistent with the the Report and Recommendation's (docket no. 47) finding that Officer Walker "had reasonable, articulable suspicion to investigate." Id. at 3 (quoting Report and Recommendation at 11).
The court need not consider the Motion which Defendant has filed pro se. "A district court is not required `to entertain pro se motions filed by a represented party.'" United States v. Tollefson, 853 F.3d 481, 485 (8th Cir. 2017) (quoting Abdullah v. United States, 240 F.3d 683, 686 (8th Cir. 2001)). Defendant is currently represented by counsel. See Order Regarding Appointment of Counsel (docket no. 4); see also July 5, 2018 Order (docket no. 166) (noting that Defendant had withdrawn his request to proceed pro se). Further, Defendant has already had the opportunity to relitigate his Motion to Suppress (docket no. 36). On June 26, 2018, Defendant filed the "Motion for Hearing on Miscarriage of Justice/to Reconsider Suppression Ruling" ("Motion to Reconsider") (docket no. 163). On August 29, 2018, the court denied the Motion to Reconsider. See August 29, 2018 Order (docket no. 170). Defendant filed the Motion to Reconsider after the trial. Thus, in this instance, even assuming Rule 33(b)(1) applied to a motion to suppress—a proposition for which Defendant has provided no support or relevant case law—it would not constitute "new information" warranting a new trial. Accordingly, the Motion is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
