Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. RIVERS, 3:11-00194. (2013)

Court: District Court, M.D. Tennessee Number: infdco20130802b52 Visitors: 1
Filed: Aug. 01, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 01, 2013
Summary: ORDER TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge. Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Petition In Opposition To The Government's Motion To In Limine Regarding Impeachment Of Testifying Witnesses (Docket No. 1423). In an Order entered on July 30, 2013 (Docket No. 1417, at 1), the Court ruled on the Government's Motion as follows: "Defendant may impeach the credibility of Government witnesses with their prior convictions pursuant to Rule 609. The Government shall make contemporaneous objections at
More

ORDER

TODD J. CAMPBELL, District Judge.

Pending before the Court is the Defendant's Petition In Opposition To The Government's Motion To In Limine Regarding Impeachment Of Testifying Witnesses (Docket No. 1423). In an Order entered on July 30, 2013 (Docket No. 1417, at 1), the Court ruled on the Government's Motion as follows: "Defendant may impeach the credibility of Government witnesses with their prior convictions pursuant to Rule 609. The Government shall make contemporaneous objections at trial if the Defendant exceeds the scope of Rule 609 as to impeachment by prior conviction." None of the arguments made in the Defendant's Petition (Docket No. 1423) lead the Court to change its prior ruling.

Also pending before the Court is the Defendant's Petition To Reopen Evidentiary Hearing To Dismiss Due To Outrageous Government Conduct That Violates Due Process, Due To Newly Discovered Evidence (Docket No. 1424). Through the Petition, the Defendant seeks to introduce "newly discovered evidence," regarding a recording on one of his cell phones that was seized by law enforcement, to support his request to dismiss based on outrageous government conduct. The Court held an evidentiary hearing on May 16, 2013, and denied Defendant's request to dismiss in an Order entered on June 4, 2013 (Docket No. 1339). Nothing in the Defendant's Petition To Reopen lead the Court to change its prior ruling. Accordingly, the Petition To Reopen (Docket No. 1424) is DENIED.

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