U.S. v. Alebbini, 3:17cr71. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Ohio
Number: infdco20190523822
Visitors: 14
Filed: May 16, 2019
Latest Update: May 16, 2019
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S SECOND PRO SE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. #86) WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . The Defendant's second pro se Motion for New Trial, filed May 15, 2019 (Doc. #86), is OVERRULED for the following reasons: 1. Defendant is represented by more than competent counsel, a Defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation (absent a direct order of the Court) and his counsel of record do not adopt the aforementioned motion; 2. The motion is untimely; a
Summary: DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S SECOND PRO SE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. #86) WALTER H. RICE , District Judge . The Defendant's second pro se Motion for New Trial, filed May 15, 2019 (Doc. #86), is OVERRULED for the following reasons: 1. Defendant is represented by more than competent counsel, a Defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation (absent a direct order of the Court) and his counsel of record do not adopt the aforementioned motion; 2. The motion is untimely; an..
More
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING DEFENDANT'S SECOND PRO SE MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL (DOC. #86)
WALTER H. RICE, District Judge.
The Defendant's second pro se Motion for New Trial, filed May 15, 2019 (Doc. #86), is OVERRULED for the following reasons:
1. Defendant is represented by more than competent counsel, a Defendant is not entitled to hybrid representation (absent a direct order of the Court) and his counsel of record do not adopt the aforementioned motion;
2. The motion is untimely; and
3. The evidence to which Defendant points is not, in this Court's opinion, "newly discovered evidence which Defendant could not have discovered with reasonable diligence and produce at his trial."
Source: Leagle
