United States v. Cragg, 1:17-CR-00012-LJO-SKO. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20190712887
Visitors: 5
Filed: Jul. 11, 2019
Latest Update: Jul. 11, 2019
Summary: ORDER TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 22, 2018, HEARING (ECF No. 170) ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Having reviewed the government's motion dated July 2, 2019, the Court orders the transcript of the hearing on February 22, 2018, ECF No. 60, unsealed. Good cause for unsealing has been shown, because the hearing concerned issues that have been identified in the defendant's appeal on the issue of his decision to represent himself. Defendant does not object to the unseal
Summary: ORDER TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 22, 2018, HEARING (ECF No. 170) ORDER LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . Having reviewed the government's motion dated July 2, 2019, the Court orders the transcript of the hearing on February 22, 2018, ECF No. 60, unsealed. Good cause for unsealing has been shown, because the hearing concerned issues that have been identified in the defendant's appeal on the issue of his decision to represent himself. Defendant does not object to the unseali..
More
ORDER TO UNSEAL TRANSCRIPT OF FEBRUARY 22, 2018, HEARING (ECF No. 170)
ORDER
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, Chief District Judge.
Having reviewed the government's motion dated July 2, 2019, the Court orders the transcript of the hearing on February 22, 2018, ECF No. 60, unsealed. Good cause for unsealing has been shown, because the hearing concerned issues that have been identified in the defendant's appeal on the issue of his decision to represent himself.
Defendant does not object to the unsealing, ECF No. 171, subject to two conditions, which are reasonable and routine. Those conditions are adopted as follows:
(1) the unsealing is limited to the prosecutors in this case, namely Assistant United States Attorneys David L. Gappa and Ross Pearson; and
(2) absent further Court order, the government may not use the February 22, 2018 transcript for any purpose other than evaluating and responding to Defendant's Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), claim in the pending direct appeal.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
