Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Wright, : 2:17-cr-00142-JAD-VCF. (2018)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20180831d22 Visitors: 5
Filed: Aug. 30, 2018
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2018
Summary: Order [ECF Nos. 126, 127, 128, 135] JENNIFER A. DORSEY , District Judge . After the jury found pro se defendant Brian Wright guilty on all three assaulting-a-federal-officer counts, he relinquished his right to self-representation in this case, and I appointed his standby counsel, Telia Williams, Esq., as his attorney. Wright soon developed the opinion that Ms. Williams "aided the government in" his pro se trial, 1 so he has moved to fire Ms. Williams. 2 Both Wright and Ms. Williams
More

Order

[ECF Nos. 126, 127, 128, 135]

After the jury found pro se defendant Brian Wright guilty on all three assaulting-a-federal-officer counts, he relinquished his right to self-representation in this case, and I appointed his standby counsel, Telia Williams, Esq., as his attorney. Wright soon developed the opinion that Ms. Williams "aided the government in" his pro se trial,1 so he has moved to fire Ms. Williams.2 Both Wright and Ms. Williams ask to extend the Rule 29 motion deadline.

I have set Wright's requests to again represent himself [ECF Nos. 125, 129] for hearing on September 10, 2018, and I defer my ruling on those motions until after that hearing.

Good cause appearing, the unopposed motion to extend time for counsel to file Wright's Rule 29 motion [ECF No. 128] is GRANTED. The deadline for Ms. Williams to file Wright's Rule 29 motion is extended to September 6, 2018, and Wright's pro se request to extend that deadline [ECF No. 126] is DENIED as moot in light of that extension.

Because the trial transcripts have already been ordered by the government and a copy has been provided to Ms. Williams for Wright, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Emergency Motion for Trial Transcripts [ECF No. 127] is also DENIED as moot.

Finally, Wright's pro se motion "requesting a change of investigator" [ECF No. 135] is DENIED because this trial is over and Wright has not demonstrated a basis for the court to appoint an investigator at this stage of the case.

FootNotes


1. ECF No. 126.
2. ECF Nos. 125, 129.
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