U.S. v. HILL, 3:13-cr-00293-MOC-DCK. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20140918a58
Visitors: 13
Filed: Sep. 17, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2014
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's pro se letter (#91), which appears to seek dismissal of this action based on the findings of other judges in other districts finding entrapment based on "stash house" sting operations. This is the second time defendant has sent the court this letter, dated June 14, 2014. The court issued an order in response to this letter on August 11, 2014 (#73) and reiterates the same instructions here. The Local Crim
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's pro se letter (#91), which appears to seek dismissal of this action based on the findings of other judges in other districts finding entrapment based on "stash house" sting operations. This is the second time defendant has sent the court this letter, dated June 14, 2014. The court issued an order in response to this letter on August 11, 2014 (#73) and reiterates the same instructions here. The Local Crimi..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's pro se letter (#91), which appears to seek dismissal of this action based on the findings of other judges in other districts finding entrapment based on "stash house" sting operations. This is the second time defendant has sent the court this letter, dated June 14, 2014. The court issued an order in response to this letter on August 11, 2014 (#73) and reiterates the same instructions here. The Local Criminal Rules, however, prohibit a represented defendant from bringing such pro se motion on his or her own. Finally, the court has addressed defendant's counseled motion after an evidentiary hearing.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that to the extent defendant seeks relief in his pro se letter (#91), such relief is denied without prejudice. Defendant is advised NOT to send letters to the court as such may contain or be construed to contain admissions against his legal interests, frustrating his constitutional right to remain silent.
Source: Leagle
