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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

18-032 - USA v. Crumble et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
18-032 - USA v. Crumble et al
April 11, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER granting in part and denying in part motion to suppress identification testimony as to Michael Crumble 41 and denying motion to suppress identification testimony as to Ramell Markus 40: For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, Crumble's motion to suppress identification testimony is granted to the extent of ordering a Wade hearing. Markus's motion to suppress identification testimony is denied at this time, without prejudice to renewal at trial under the circumstances herein. I reserve judgment on the other aspects of Markus's motion. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 4/11/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Main Document 43 replaced on 4/12/2018) (Guzzi, Roseann).ORDER granting in part and denying in part motion to suppress identification testimony as to Michael Crumble 41 and denying motion to suppress identification testimony as to Ramell Markus 40: For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, Crumble's motion to suppress identification testimony is granted to the extent of ordering a Wade hearing. Markus's motion to suppress identification testimony is denied at this time, without prejudice to renewal at trial under the circumstances herein. I reserve judgment on the other aspects of Markus's motion. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 4/11/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Main Document 43 replaced on 4/12/2018) (Guzzi, Roseann).ORDER granting in part and denying in part motion to suppress identification testimony as to Michael Crumble 41 and denying motion to suppress identification testimony as to Ramell Markus 40: For the reasons stated in the attached opinion, Crumble's motion to suppress identification testimony is granted to the extent of ordering a Wade hearing. Markus's motion to suppress identification testimony is denied at this time, without prejudice to renewal at trial under the circumstances herein. I reserve judgment on the other aspects of Markus's motion. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 4/11/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Main Document 43 replaced on 4/12/2018) (Guzzi, Roseann).
May 1, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER: For the reasons given in the attached opinion, I anticipate that I will likely make the following rulings at trial as to the government's applications to admit certain evidence in its direct case and, if the defendants testify, under Rule 609. I will likely grant the government's motion to admit evidence against Markus in its direct case in substantial part, but deny this motion as to Markus's 2012 conviction and as to any proposed testimony about his prior drug dealings that do not involve Doe or Individual 1. I also anticipate that I will grant in part the government's motion to admit evidence in its direct case against Crumble, but not permit the proposed evidence of a robbery attempt that occurred after the date of the charged crimes or the cell phone scheme. If Markus testifies, I will likely grant the government's application to introduce his prior convictions as to his 2012 drug sale conviction, but deny its motion as to Markus's 2006 larceny conviction, his 2006 drug possession conviction, and his 1999 robbery conviction. Finally, if Crumble testifies, I will probably grant the government's application to admit his prior robbery conviction into evidence as to the fact of the conviction, its date, and the length of his sentence, but will likely deny this request as to the statutory name or nature of this offense. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/1/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew)ORDER: For the reasons given in the attached opinion, I anticipate that I will likely make the following rulings at trial as to the government's applications to admit certain evidence in its direct case and, if the defendants testify, under Rule 609. I will likely grant the government's motion to admit evidence against Markus in its direct case in substantial part, but deny this motion as to Markus's 2012 conviction and as to any proposed testimony about his prior drug dealings that do not involve Doe or Individual 1. I also anticipate that I will grant in part the government's motion to admit evidence in its direct case against Crumble, but not permit the proposed evidence of a robbery attempt that occurred after the date of the charged crimes or the cell phone scheme. If Markus testifies, I will likely grant the government's application to introduce his prior convictions as to his 2012 drug sale conviction, but deny its motion as to Markus's 2006 larceny conviction, his 2006 drug possession conviction, and his 1999 robbery conviction. Finally, if Crumble testifies, I will probably grant the government's application to admit his prior robbery conviction into evidence as to the fact of the conviction, its date, and the length of his sentence, but will likely deny this request as to the statutory name or nature of this offense. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/1/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew)ORDER: For the reasons given in the attached opinion, I anticipate that I will likely make the following rulings at trial as to the government's applications to admit certain evidence in its direct case and, if the defendants testify, under Rule 609. I will likely grant the government's motion to admit evidence against Markus in its direct case in substantial part, but deny this motion as to Markus's 2012 conviction and as to any proposed testimony about his prior drug dealings that do not involve Doe or Individual 1. I also anticipate that I will grant in part the government's motion to admit evidence in its direct case against Crumble, but not permit the proposed evidence of a robbery attempt that occurred after the date of the charged crimes or the cell phone scheme. If Markus testifies, I will likely grant the government's application to introduce his prior convictions as to his 2012 drug sale conviction, but deny its motion as to Markus's 2006 larceny conviction, his 2006 drug possession conviction, and his 1999 robbery conviction. Finally, if Crumble testifies, I will probably grant the government's application to admit his prior robbery conviction into evidence as to the fact of the conviction, its date, and the length of his sentence, but will likely deny this request as to the statutory name or nature of this offense. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/1/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew)
May 2, 2018
PDF | More
ORDER denying 74 Motion to Dismiss Indictment as to Ramell Markus for the reasons stated in the attached opinion.Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/2/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew)
May 4, 2018
PDF | More
MEMORANDUM OPINION as to Michael Crumble: In light of the government's May 1 letter 71 and defense counsel's representation at the May 2 status conference that he could not rule out that knowledge and intent would be in dispute at trial, my view of the admissibility of the other-acts evidence against Mr. Crumble has changed. For the reasons given in the attached opinion, I now anticipate that I will likely allow in the evidence of the cell phone fraud scheme and the subsequent robbery plot in the governments direct case. Ordered by Judge Allyne R. Ross on 5/4/2018. (Wasserman, Matthew) (Main Document 87 replaced on 5/4/2018) (Guzzi, Roseann).