United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL [ECF
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Warner filed a motion for reconsideration of this Court's
order denying his motion for a new trial. Warner does not
show any “palpable defect” in the Court's
order, and the Court DENIES his motion.
facts of this case are set forth in this Court's order
denying Warner's motion for a new trial [ECF No. 153].
The Court denied his motion for a new trial because the
premise of the motion - that Warner requested counsel
different from his counsel of record, and the Court denied
that request - is a fallacy.
succeed on a motion for reconsideration “[t]he movant
must not only demonstrate a palpable defect by which the
court and the parties and other persons entitled to be heard
on the motion have been misled but also show that correcting
the defect will result in a different disposition of the
case.” E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(h)(3). A “palpable
defect” is a “defect that is obvious, clear,
unmistakable, manifest, or plain.” United States v.
Cican, 156 F.Supp.2d 661, 668 (E.D. Mich. 2001) (J.
fails to demonstrate any “obvious, clear, unmistakable,
manifest, or plain” defect in the Court's denial of
his motion for a new trial.
motion, Warner tries to reframe the issue that was before the
Court in May 2019 when he filed his emergency motion to
adjourn his trial date.
true landscape of the issue is this:
. There were three requests for adjournment
- all of which the Court granted - prior to the request for
adjournment at issue.
. Six days before the fourth scheduled trial
date, Warner's trial counsel, Robert Harrison, sent an
email to the Court about back and leg pain. He said his
client was aware of his limitations, and that he may need
accommodations during trial. No request to adjourn the trial
. The Court tried to finalize a trial
schedule the next day and said it may contain a mix of half
and full days. Harrison emailed the Court the day after,
seeking an adjournment. He said he could not do full days,
and that “IF” the trial was adjourned, he would
arrange to have an additional lawyer try the case with him so
that his back issues would not be a “consideration at
the time of the new trial date.” The Court decided not
to handle the issue via email; it told Harrison to file a
. The next day, Harrison filed an emergency
motion to adjourn trial. He did not mention the need for
another attorney. He took issue with the trial schedule. He
said health issues would impair his performance. Harrison
expressed concerns with a “truncated” schedule
and artificial limitations the Court might place on
Warner's right to cross examine witnesses. Harrison
stated, “defense counsel's health issues make this
truncated schedule an impossibility.”
. In denying the motion, the Court addressed
Harrison's issue with the trial schedule and proposed
several schedules, including one that completely granted
Harrison's request for half days and which anticipated a
week-long break as well. It included 4 half days; a weekend
plus two days of break from trial; two half days of trial, a
weekend plus a day break from trial; three half days of
trial; a week break; one full day of trial and two half days.
The parties declined this schedule and opted for the one that