U.S. v. MINJAREZ, 14-172. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20150514a26
Visitors: 6
Filed: May 11, 2015
Latest Update: May 11, 2015
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , District Judge . Considering the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Denial of Defendant's Motion to Transfer this Case to the Eastern District of California Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) (Rec. Doc. No. 59), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Defense counsel fails to refute that she has been provided or has had access to eight discs of Title III wiretap calls and text messages since October 2014, nearly a year ago. Defense counsel
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , District Judge . Considering the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Denial of Defendant's Motion to Transfer this Case to the Eastern District of California Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) (Rec. Doc. No. 59), IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Defense counsel fails to refute that she has been provided or has had access to eight discs of Title III wiretap calls and text messages since October 2014, nearly a year ago. Defense counsel ..
More
ORDER
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, District Judge.
Considering the Defendant's Motion to Reconsider the Denial of Defendant's Motion to Transfer this Case to the Eastern District of California Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b) (Rec. Doc. No. 59),
IT IS ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED. Defense counsel fails to refute that she has been provided or has had access to eight discs of Title III wiretap calls and text messages since October 2014, nearly a year ago. Defense counsel also fails to show as incorrect the government's assertion that these same discs included rough English translations, and constitute the bulk of Title III calls from the instant alleged conspiracy. While the recordings from six target phone calls were produced to the defense, calls from only one of the target phones will be used in the government's case in chief. In addition, verified translations of relevant calls have been and will continue to be produced, with defense counsel having the option to do additional verifications on its own.
The instant motion fails to raise anything new to warrant reconsideration of order denying transfer of case to California.
Source: Leagle
