Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PEARSON, 15-20457. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan Number: infdco20160624a47 Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SEVER (ECF #59) AND (2) DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO PRESERVE ROUGH NOTES (ECF #44) MATTHEW F. LEITMAN , District Judge . On February 4, 2015, Defendant Shawn Pearson ("Pearson") filed a motion requesting that the Court order the Government to preserve certain "rough notes" taken by Government agents (the "Motion to Preserve"). ( See ECF #44.) Pearson also asked the Court to review the notes in camera. ( See id. ) On March 22, 2016, Pearson fi
More

ORDER (1) GRANTING MOTION TO SEVER (ECF #59) AND (2) DENYING IN PART WITHOUT PREJUDICE MOTION TO PRESERVE ROUGH NOTES (ECF #44)

On February 4, 2015, Defendant Shawn Pearson ("Pearson") filed a motion requesting that the Court order the Government to preserve certain "rough notes" taken by Government agents (the "Motion to Preserve"). (See ECF #44.) Pearson also asked the Court to review the notes in camera. (See id.) On March 22, 2016, Pearson filed a second motion requesting that the Court (1) sever the charges against the Co-Defendants from the charges against him or (2) sever Counts I and II of the Superseding Indictment from the remaining counts in the indictment (the "Motion to Sever"). (See ECF #59.) The Court held a hearing on both motions on June 16, 2016.

For the reasons stated on the record at the June 16, 2016, hearing, the Motion to Sever is GRANTED. Counts I and II of the Superseding Indictment shall be tried separately from Counts III-VIII.

With respect to the Motion to Preserve, the Government has agreed to preserve the "rough notes" Pearson has identified. Therefore, the Motion to Preserve is moot to the extent that it requests preservation. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court DENIES Pearson's request for an in camera review of the notes. As further explained on the record, the denial is without prejudice to Perason's right to renew his request for an in camera review of the notes at a later date.

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