Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. SCHOENER, 3:11cr190-5. (2012)

Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina Number: infdco20120424b38 Visitors: 8
Filed: Apr. 23, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 23, 2012
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on a letter to chambers written by defendant. In that letter, defendant requests the return of seized property, to wit, computers, which he contends are the property of his minor children. Because defendant is represented by counsel, direct correspondence with the court is improper. L.Cr.R. 47.1(H). Defendant is advised to discuss such issue with his attorney who can seek relief in the form of a Motion for Return of Se
More

ORDER

MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.

THIS MATTER is before the court on a letter to chambers written by defendant. In that letter, defendant requests the return of seized property, to wit, computers, which he contends are the property of his minor children. Because defendant is represented by counsel, direct correspondence with the court is improper. L.Cr.R. 47.1(H). Defendant is advised to discuss such issue with his attorney who can seek relief in the form of a Motion for Return of Seized Property under Rule 41(g), Fed.R.Crim.P. Defendant is cautioned that sending un-counseled letters to the court is not only prohibited, it jeopardizes his legal interests as such materials could be used against him.

ORDER

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that any relief requested by way of the letter (#56) is denied without prejudice as moot in accordance with L.Cr.R. 47.1(H).

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