Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-10133 - USA v. Davis


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-10133 - USA v. Davis
March 15, 2017
PDF | More
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered as to Barry Davis (1). For the foregoing reasons, the Motion for Relief from Misjoinder and/or Severance of Counts (Docket No. 69) is ALLOWED as to Counts Five, Six, and Seven. The motion is DENIED as to Counts Eight and Nine. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
March 15, 2017
PDF | More
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered as to Barry Davis, Granting in Part, Denied in Part, and the motion is RESERVED as to the jail calls, pending submission of transcripts of the calls the government seeks to introduce at trial re 88 MOTION in Limine Under Rules 401, 404(b) and 403. See ORDER for Details. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)
March 15, 2017
PDF | More
Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered re 70 MOTION to Dismiss Count 5, 6, and 7 filed by Barry Davis. For the reasons stated on the record at the March 10, 2017 pretrial hearing, the Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70) is DENIED as to Count Seven. See Bartkus v. People of State of Ill., 359 U.S. 121, 132 (1959); Puerto Rico v. Sanchez Valle, 136 S. Ct. 1863, 1870 (2016).The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70) Counts Five and Six on Ex Post Facto Clause grounds is DENIED. See Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607, 618 (2003); Cruz v. Maypa, 773 F.3d 138, 145 (4th Cir. 2014); United States v. Jeffries, 405 F.3d 682, 685 (8th Cir. 2005); United States v. Grimes, 142 F.3d 1342, 1351 (11th Cir. 1998); United States v. Brechtel, 997 F.2d 1108, 1113 (5th Cir. 1993); United States v. Taliaferro, 979 F.2d 1399, 1402 (10th Cir. 1992). The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70) Counts Five and Six on Due Process Clause grounds is DENIED because there is no evidence that the government intentionally delayed prosecution to gain a tactical advantage. See United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 78990 (1977); United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36, 78 (1st Cir. 2008) (no Due Process violation unless pre-indictment delay causes substantial prejudice to defendants right to fair trial and prosecution intentionally delayed indictment to gain tactical advantage over the accused).The Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 70) Counts Five and Six on the grounds that 8 U.S.C. ยง 3299 is not retroactive is a difficult question, and is TAKEN UNDER ADVISEMENT and STAYED pending the outcome of the first trial. (Geraldino-Karasek, Clarilde)