Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Ludwig, 2:14-cr-0043 KJM KJN P. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181210a47 Visitors: 7
Filed: Dec. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 07, 2018
Summary: ORDER KENDALL J. NEWMAN , Magistrate Judge . Movant (hereafter "Ludwig IV") is a federal prisoner, proceeding through appointed counsel, with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255. This matter came on for hearing on December 8, 2018, to address concrete issues identified in the parties' joint status report. Linn a M. Johnson, Esq., appeared telephonically for Ludwig IV. James Conolly, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared telephonically fo
More

ORDER

Movant (hereafter "Ludwig IV") is a federal prisoner, proceeding through appointed counsel, with a motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. This matter came on for hearing on December 8, 2018, to address concrete issues identified in the parties' joint status report. Linnéa M. Johnson, Esq., appeared telephonically for Ludwig IV. James Conolly, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared telephonically for respondent. Upon hearing the arguments of counsel and good cause appearing, the court will allow movant to have the proposed expert witness on standby, outside the proceedings on December 10, 2018. The court takes under submission the question of whether Ludwig IV will be permitted to call the proposed expert witness, subject to a more sufficient showing at the hearing as to what testimony he could offer. The government reserves all objections, including timing, relevance, and whether such proposed expert witness can testify as to the ultimate question of whether Ludwig IV's defense attorney was ineffective.

As to the issues concerning admissibility, the witness Coral Hilder will be allowed to testify as to what she heard when present for conversations between Mr. Ludwig and Mr. Cosca. Mr. Cosca will be allowed to testify as to his discussion with the former federal prosecutor as to the pending sentencing amendment, including the alleged response that the government was unwilling to reduce the guideline range, and Ludwig IV will be allowed to cross-examine Cosca on such discussion. Following such testimony, the court will decide whether or not testimony from the former prosecutor is required; the government preserves its objections to such testimony for the record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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