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. Manning

United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division

February 21, 2018

United States of America, Plaintiff,
v.
Jason Manning and Gregory Hendon, Defendants.

         OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE 404(b) EVIDENCE, DENYING MOTION TO QUASH INDICTMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, DENYING MOTION FOR REVOCATION OF DETENTION ORDER, AND SETTING MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FOR HEARING.

          Sean F. Cox United States District Judge.

         In this criminal case Defendants Jason Manning and Gregory Hendon have filed Motions for Additional Discovery (Doc. # 37), to Quash the First Superseding Indictment for Prejudicial Pre-Indictment Delay (Doc. # 34), to Exclude 404(b) Evidence (Doc. # 33), and to Suppress Evidence (Doc. # 35). Defendant Hendon has also filed a Motion for Revocation of Detention Order (Doc. # 49). The Court held a hearing on these motions on February 16, 2018.

         For the reasons below, the Court shall grant the Motion for Additional Discovery, deny the Motion to Quash without prejudice, grant the Motion to Exclude 404(b) Evidence, and deny the Motion for Revocation of Detention order. The Court shall also adjourn the Motion to Suppress Evidence.

         BACKGROUND

         In August 2013, Defendants Jason Manning and Gregory Hendon were arrested after Detroit Police Department officers found them in the same apartment as packets and rocks of heroin, cell phones, a scale, a loaded shotgun, and some cash. Despite the arrest, Defendants were not charged with a crime.

         In 2016, after investigating the use of the recovered shotgun in an April 2013 murder, federal law enforcement officials became aware that Defendants had never been charged for the August 2013 incident. A criminal complaint was issued in June 2017 and a grand jury returned an indictment in July 2017, charging Manning with drugs and weapons offenses. Two months later, the grand jury returned a first superseding indictment against Manning and Hendon.

         In February 2018, the grand jury returned a second superseding indictment, charging Manning and Hendon with: conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 846; possession with intent to distribute heroin, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking offense, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and felon in possession of a firearm, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (Doc. # 47). The indictment also charges Manning possession with intent to distribute marijuana, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1).

         ANALYSIS

         I. Motion for Additional Discovery

         To begin, Defendants have moved for additional discovery, seeking an order compelling the Government to produce numerous discovery items. For the reasons stated at the hearing, the Court shall grant Defendants' motion. The Government shall respond to the requests in ¶¶ 1-6 of that motion. If the Government has any of the discovery requested in those paragraphs, the Government shall produce and/or disclose it to Defendants. If the Government does not have any of the discovery requested in those paragraphs, it shall inform Defendants of this fact.

         II. Motion to Quash the Indictment

         Next, Defendants have moved to quash the indictment, arguing that the four-year delay between their arrest and the first superseding indictment violated their due process rights.

         Statutes of limitations provide the primary guarantee against “bringing overly stale criminal charges.” United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322 (1971). But the Due Process Clause also protects against oppressive pre-indictment delay, requiring dismissal if “the defendant shows substantial prejudice to his right to a fair trial and that the delay was an intentional device by ...


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.