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. Scott

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

April 2, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
CURTIS SCOTT, Defendant.

          ORDER (1) EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINE DATES AND (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO READDRESS (ECF #345) AND REQUESTS TO READDRESS (ECF ## 341, 342, 343, 346)

          MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         The Court held a continued evidentiary hearing on Defendant Curtis Scott’s motion for a new trial on March 12, 2018. At the end of the hearing, the Court asked Scott’s standby counsel to order the transcript of that hearing, mail it to Scott, and file a certificate of service with the Court. (See 3/12/2018 Tr. at 158:4-158:12, ECF #344 at Pg. ID 4166.) The Court then directed Scott to file his post-hearing brief in support of his motion for a new trial within 21 days after the transcript was mailed; the Court directed the Government to file a response within 21 days after Scott filed his response. (See Id. at 158:13-158:15, 160:24-161:3, Pg. ID 4166, 4168-69.)

         Scott’s standby counsel has filed a certificate of service in which he certifies that he served a copy of the March 12, 2018 evidentiary hearing transcript by mail on Scott on March 28, 2018. (See ECF #347.) Scott’s standby counsel has also sent an email to the Court passing along a request by Scott for two additional weeks to prepare and file his brief. Standby counsel reports that the Government does not oppose the requested extension.

         Scott’s request for an extension is GRANTED. Scott shall file his post-hearing brief in support of his motion for a new trial by not later than May 2, 2018. The Government shall file any response by not later than June 6, 2018.

         Scott has also filed a motion and various letters requesting that the Court reconvene the evidentiary hearing so that he may readdress the Court. (See Mot. to Address, ECF #345; Letters, ECF ## 341, 342, 343, 346.) Scott argues that the Court should resume the hearing because he did not have his prescribed medication on the day of the hearing, and the lack of medication interfered with his mental ability to think clearly at the hearing.

         The Court DENIES Scott’s motion and requests to reconvene the evidentiary hearing. During the hearing, the Court specifically confirmed with Scott that he was able to proceed despite the absence of his medication:

THE COURT: Mr. Scott, I understand that the last time we were scheduled to be here, you had a health concern. Are you feeling better?
THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, a little bit.
THE COURT: Were you able -- are you able to proceed this morning?
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I just need my medication.
THE COURT: What medication?
THE DEFENDANT: The lisinopril and keflex.
THE COURT: Are you able to proceed -- I don't have medication with me right now. Are you able to ...

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.