Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Andrews

United States District Court, D. Minnesota

July 24, 2019

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Norris Deshon Andrews, Defendant.

          Norris Deshon Andrews, pro se

          Daniel L. Gerdts, standby counsel for Defendant

          Jeffrey Paulsen and Samantha Bates, United States Attorney for the Government

          ORDER

          SUSAN RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Before the Court are a number of pending motions in this matter, which the Court addresses below. The Court has previously recounted the factual background of this case in its May 8, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 190], which it incorporates by reference here. Recently, the Court permitted the reopening of the suppression hearing, to the extent that recently disclosed evidence concerned particular, limited issues.[1] (See June 19, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 224].) Magistrate Judge Schultz presided over the six-hour reopened suppression hearing on July 18, 2019. (See July 18, 2019 Hr'g Minutes [Doc. No. 242].)

         In late May, the Court granted Defendant's request for a trial continuance, (May 29, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 217), and scheduled trial for September 23, 2019. (June 14, 2019 Order & Trial Notice [Doc. No. 222].)

         1. Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 174] to Exclude Government Trial Witnesses

         Andrews, who is self-represented, moves to exclude all witnesses for the Government on the grounds that the Government has not disclosed them in accordance with Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.1. (Def.'s Mot. to Exclude Gov't Witnesses [Doc. No. 174] at 1-2.) The Government opposes Defendant's motion. (Govt's Resp. [Doc. No. 200] at 1-2.) The Court construes this as a motion in limine, and defers ruling until closer to trial.

         2. Defendant's Motions [Doc. Nos. 178 & 182] for Oral Argument on Objections to the Magistrate Judge's April 22, 2019 Order

         Defendant requests oral argument to raise objections to the magistrate judge's April 22, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 170]. In the Order, Magistrate Judge Schultz addressed several of Andrews' discovery motions concerning information related to the T-Mobile exigent request, Brady material, Rule 16 discovery, and the production of audio recordings. Andrews argues that he is unable to study case law or use the library for a reasonable time in which to prepare an objection. (Def.'s Req. for Oral Arg. on Objs. to Doc. No. 170) (Doc. No. 178]; Am. Req. [Doc. No. 182].) The Government opposes Defendant's request. (Gov't's Resp. [Doc. No. 200] at 5.)

         At the time of the filing of Andrews' requests for a hearing-April 30, 2019 and May 1, 2019-he was not housed in segregation for medical reasons, nor did he appear to have any difficulty filing motions, letters, and objections. In fact, on June 12, 2019, Andrews filed 13 pages of objections to the April 22, 2019 Order. (See Def.'s Obj. [Doc. No. 219].) Accordingly, his motions seeking oral argument are denied.

         3. Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 184] to Suppress/Exclude Evidence Due to Late and Untimely Disclosure

         Andrews styles this as a motion to suppress or exclude evidence under Rule 16 on the grounds that the Government failed to timely disclose it. (Def.'s Mot. to Exclude Ev. [Doc. No. 184].) He contends that this evidence, which includes bodycam footage and police reports, supports his claims of Government misconduct. (Id. at 1.) The Government states that it disclosed this information on April 12 and 16, 2019, and opposes the motion. (Gov't's Resp. [Doc. No. 200] at 6.)

         To the extent that Defendant intends for this motion to serve as a suppression motion, the magistrate judge will entertain supplemental briefing related to the reopened suppression hearing. To the extent that this motion is construed as a motion in limine, the Court will rule on it closer to trial. In either instance, the Court defers ruling.

         4. Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 186] to Reopen the Suppression Hearing

         Defendant filed his Motion to Reopen the Suppression Hearing on May 7, 2019. In response to his subsequent June 9, 2019 request [Doc. No. 220], seeking the same relief, the Court granted the reopening of the suppression hearing, on a limited basis. (See June 19, 2019 Order [Doc. No. 224].) The May 7, 2019 motion is therefore denied as moot.

         5. Government's Motion in ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.