U.S. v. GARRISON, 14-cr-0231-WJM. (2016)
Court: District Court, D. Colorado
Number: infdco20160408f83
Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 06, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 06, 2016
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GARRISON'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Garrison's Motion to Reconsider Motions Filings and Trial Date. (ECF No. 897.) Garrison asks this Court to reconsider its prior rulings (ECF No. 836, 887) that the deadline for filing motions to suppress, including motions attacking the wiretap, expired on February 1, 2016. Garrison asks that he receive an opportunity to
Summary: ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GARRISON'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER WILLIAM J. MART NEZ , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Garrison's Motion to Reconsider Motions Filings and Trial Date. (ECF No. 897.) Garrison asks this Court to reconsider its prior rulings (ECF No. 836, 887) that the deadline for filing motions to suppress, including motions attacking the wiretap, expired on February 1, 2016. Garrison asks that he receive an opportunity to f..
More
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT GARRISON'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER
WILLIAM J. MARTÍNEZ, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Garrison's Motion to Reconsider Motions Filings and Trial Date. (ECF No. 897.) Garrison asks this Court to reconsider its prior rulings (ECF No. 836, 887) that the deadline for filing motions to suppress, including motions attacking the wiretap, expired on February 1, 2016. Garrison asks that he receive an opportunity to file such a motion, and that the current trial setting be vacated to accommodate such a motion.
The Court notes that Garrison, for nearly two years, was represented by two CJA-appointed lawyers, both of whom are experienced and highly respected in the Colorado criminal defense bar, and claim expertise in wiretap matters. Garrison's attorneys never filed a motion to suppress the wiretap or even for an extension of time to do so, but simply sought discovery that would supposedly assist in filing a motion to suppress. (See ECF No. 706.) Given that, the Court has more than adequate reason to deny Garrison's requests outright.
Nonetheless, solely in the interests of justice, Garrison's Motion to Reconsider (ECF No. 897) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
1. The portions of ECF Nos. 836 and 887 stating that the deadline for filing suppression motions, including wiretap suppression motions, are VACATED.
2. All remaining Defendants may file a motion to suppress, including a motion to suppress the wiretap, on or before May 6, 2016. The Court strongly prefers to see only one motion on behalf of all remaining Defendants who wish to so move, rather than individual motions. Accordingly, counsel for Defendants shall confer amongst themselves to determine whether they can reasonably file a joint motion. See WJM Revised Practice Standard IX.H.
3. Should any Defendant timely file a suppression motion, the Government shall respond to such motion on or before May 27, 2016. No reply will be permitted absent further order of the Court.
4. The remainder of the requests contained in Garrison's Motion, and in particular the request to vacate the current trial setting, are DENIED. The Court reaffirms its prior notice to all counsel and all remaining Defendants (ECF No. 877 at 3) that, absent pretrial disposition(s), this case WILL proceed to trial on Monday, September 26, 2016.
Source: Leagle
