U.S. v. Scott, CR418-262. (2019)
Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20190205a41
Visitors: 14
Filed: Feb. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Hosea Scott, indicted for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, sought to suppress all evidence and statements which were obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment or in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq . Doc. 15; Doc. 16. Because his motions were bereft of factual support, the Court ordered him to file a supplemental motion to suppress, or face the denial of his motions. Doc. 35. On February 1,
Summary: ORDER CHRISTOPHER L. RAY , Magistrate Judge . Defendant Hosea Scott, indicted for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, sought to suppress all evidence and statements which were obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment or in contravention of 18 U.S.C. 2510 et seq . Doc. 15; Doc. 16. Because his motions were bereft of factual support, the Court ordered him to file a supplemental motion to suppress, or face the denial of his motions. Doc. 35. On February 1, ..
More
ORDER
CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, Magistrate Judge.
Defendant Hosea Scott, indicted for possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, sought to suppress all evidence and statements which were obtained in violation of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendment or in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 2510 et seq. Doc. 15; Doc. 16. Because his motions were bereft of factual support, the Court ordered him to file a supplemental motion to suppress, or face the denial of his motions. Doc. 35. On February 1, 2019, defendant filed a Motion to Suppress DNA Report. Doc. 36. Generally, defendant argues that the DNA retrieved from the crime scene was contaminated and should be suppressed pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 702 and the Sixth Amendment. Id. at 1.
After review of the motion, the Court will CONTINUE the hearing scheduled in this case until February 21, 2019. The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Considering the new information provided in the motion, the Court finds that such a continuance is necessary to allow time for the parties to prepare adequately for a hearing on Defendant's motion taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
