United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Melinda A. Williams, Assistant United States Attorney, United
States Attorney's Office, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of
S. Becker, Assistant Federal Defender, Office of the Federal
Defender, Minneapolis, MN, on behalf of Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
MONTGOMERY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
December 14, 2017, the undersigned United States District
Judge held a status conference regarding five pro se motions
filed by Defendant Norbert Joseph Sturdevant
(“Sturdevant”): 1) Motion to Quash
Indictment/Information [Docket No. 29]; 2) Motion to Dismiss
Charges and Indictment [Docket No. 30]; 3) Motion for Grand
Jury Array and Proceedings Transcripts [Docket No. 31]; 4)
Motion to Record Voir Dire Proceedings [Docket No. 32]; and
5) Motion to Dismiss Because of Unconstitutional Application
of Federal Statute [Docket No. 34]. During the conference,
the Court granted Sturdevant's Motion to Record Voir Dire
Proceedings, and took the remaining motions under advisement.
See Min. Entry [Docket No. 37]. For the reasons set
forth below, Sturdevant's Motions are denied.
26, 2017, Sturdevant was indicted on a single count of
failing to register as a sex offender, in violation of 18
U.S.C. § 2250(a). See Indictment [Docket No.
1]. On September 5, 2017, Attorney James S. Becker
(“Becker”) appeared on behalf of Strudevant.
See Notice Appearance/Substitution [Docket No. 12].
Becker filed six motions related to discovery and evidentiary
disclosure on Sturdevant's behalf shortly thereafter.
See Mots. [Docket Nos. 17-22].
those motions were filed, Sturdevant filed the five pro se
motions identified above. Because the motions were filed by a
represented party, the Court determined that a status
conference was necessary to discuss Sturdevant's motions
and the status of his representation by counsel.
the conference, Sturdevant stated the he filed the motions to
assert and preserve his rights and that he was not
dissatisfied with his legal representation. The Court
explained that represented individuals may not file pro se
motions, but that under the circumstances this set of motions
would be considered. The Court also provided Sturdevant with
an opportunity to supplement his motions with oral argument.
conclusion of the conference, the Court granted
Sturdevant's Motion to Record Voir Dire Proceedings and
took the remaining motions under advisement. The Court
advised Sturdevant that any further motions must be made
through his attorney.
Motion to Quash Indictment/Information
argues that the Indictment must be quashed because the grand
jury foreperson was not a federally recognized Native
American Indian, in violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Sturdevant additionally argues that because there were no
Native American Indians in the grand jury, the Indictment
must be quashed.
Sixth Amendment . . . guarantee[s] a criminal defendant a
grand jury composed of a fair cross-section of the community
chosen at random. United States v. Ireland, 62 F.3d
227, 231 (8th Cir. 1995). To prevail on such a claim, the
Eighth Circuit requires proof that Native Americans'
representation on the grand jury was not fair and reasonable
in relation to their representation in the community, and
their under-representation resulted from ...