Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. JONES, 6:13CR39(2). (2014)

Court: District Court, E.D. Texas Number: infdco20140908c67 Visitors: 10
Filed: Sep. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Sep. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge. On August 19, 2014, the Court referred two motions to the Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration: Defendant's Motion to Determine Admissibility of Statement (Docket No. 118) and Defendant's Motion for a Hearing to Determine if a Bruton Issue Exists (Docket No. 119). Judge Mitchell granted Defendant's motion for a hearing and conducted a he
More

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, District Judge.

On August 19, 2014, the Court referred two motions to the Honorable K. Nicole Mitchell, United States Magistrate Judge, for consideration: Defendant's Motion to Determine Admissibility of Statement (Docket No. 118) and Defendant's Motion for a Hearing to Determine if a Bruton Issue Exists (Docket No. 119). Judge Mitchell granted Defendant's motion for a hearing and conducted a hearing on August 22, 2014.

The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her findings, conclusions, and recommendation for the disposition of Defendant's Motion to Determine Admissibility of Statement (Docket No. 118), construed as a motion to suppress, has been presented for consideration. The Report and Recommendation, filed on August 25, 2014, recommends that the motion to suppress be denied. In open court at the hearing, the parties agreed to serve and file any written objections within seven days after the filing of the Report and Recommendation. To date, no written objections have been filed. The Court therefore adopts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge as those of the Court.

In light of the foregoing, it is hereby .

ORDERED that the Motion to Determine Admissibility of Statement (Docket No. 118), construed as a motion to suppress, is DENIED.

As noted in the Report and Recommendation, the Court previously granted Defendant's Motion for a Hearing to Determine if a Bruton Issue Exists (Docket No. 119). Based upon the representations made at the hearing, there is no Bruton issue before the Court.

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