United States District Court, D. Minnesota
Deshon Andrews, pro se
L. Gerdts, standby counsel for Defendant
Jeffrey Paulsen and Samantha Bates, United States Attorney
for the Government
RICHARD NELSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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. (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].)
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].)
Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 174] to Exclude Government
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
Defendant's Motions [Doc. Nos. 178 & 182] for Oral
Argument on Objections to the Magistrate Judge's April
22, 2019 Order
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.)
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.
Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 184] to Suppress/Exclude
Evidence Due to Late and Untimely Disclosure
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
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.
Defendant's Motion [Doc. No. 186] to Reopen the
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.
Government's Motion in ...