Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. VASQUEZ, 5:14-MJ-02348-RN. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20150217c89 Visitors: 7
Filed: Feb. 13, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II, Magistrate Judge. The Government has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's February 12, 2015 Order granting Defendant's Motion to Determine Competency of Defendant. [D.E. 11, 12]. In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government levies the serious allegation that defense counsel misrepresented both the Government's position on the Motion to Determine Competency of Defendant and the Government's intent to file a corresponding motion pursuant to 18 U
More

ORDER

ROBERT T. NUMBERS, II, Magistrate Judge.

The Government has filed a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's February 12, 2015 Order granting Defendant's Motion to Determine Competency of Defendant. [D.E. 11, 12]. In its Motion for Reconsideration, the Government levies the serious allegation that defense counsel misrepresented both the Government's position on the Motion to Determine Competency of Defendant and the Government's intent to file a corresponding motion pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4242.

In light of the seriousness of the Government's allegations and the need to address this matter before the upcoming term of court in Fayetteville, it is ordered that:

1. The court will hold a hearing on the Government's Motion for Reconsideration on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at 2:00 p.m. in the Fifth Floor Courtroom, Terry Sanford Federal Building, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina. Counsel who signed the motion for psychiatric examination and the motion for reconsideration shall appear.

2. Defendant shall file a response to the Motion for Reconsideration by Tuesday, February 17, 2015 at 5:00 p.m. The response shall be accompanied by an affidavit or declaration under 28 U.S.C. § 1746 from Defendant's counsel regarding his understanding of the Government's position on the motion for a psychiatric examination.

3. To the extent there was any written correspondence exchanged between the parties regarding the Defendant's Motion for Psychiatric Evaluation before it was filed, the correspondence should be submitted by the parties.

4. The parties shall also be prepared to discuss the need for the Defendant to undergo a psychiatric evaluation, including the basis establishing reasonable cause to believe she is suffering from a mental disease or defect.

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