From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Smith

United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
Jul 27, 2022
No. 19-00315-10-CR-W-DGK (W.D. Mo. Jul. 27, 2022)

Opinion

Criminal Action 19-00315-01-CR-W-DGK 19-00315-02-CR-W-DGK 19-00315-04-CR-W-DGK 19-00315-08- CR-W-DGK 19-00315-10-CR-W-DGK

07-27-2022

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. LADELE D. SMITH 1, ROY O. FRANKLN, JR. 2, DAVID J. DUNCAN, IV 4, CORY T. BROWN 8, and GARY O. TOOMBS 10. Defendants.


MEMORANDUM OF MATTERS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN AT PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

JILL A. MORRIS, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

The following matters were discussed and action taken during the pretrial conference:

PENDING CHARGES: The Superseding Indictment (Doc. 234) contains the following charges:

Defendant Smith: Counts 1- 3, 6-18

Defendant Franklin: Counts 1-2, 6-8, 19-24

Defendant Duncan: Counts 1, 6-7, 25-26, 35-39

Defendant Brown: Count 1

Defendant Toombs: Counts 1-2, 8

TRIAL COUNSEL:

Government: Ashleigh Ragner & Mary Kate Butterfield

Case Agent: Special Agent Doug McKelway (FBI)

Defendant Smith: Angela Hasty

Defendant Franklin: Justin Johnston

Defendant Duncan: Joshua Adams, Quinn Michaelis & Vincent Rivera

Defendant Brown: Ellen Michaels, Lisa Dwyer & Marilyn Keller

Defendant Toombs: Lance Haley

OUTSTANDING MOTIONS:

Defendant Smith: Daubert motion to exclude testimony of Timothy Flohrschutz (Doc. 640)

Motion to suppress wiretap evidence (Doc. 667)

Motion to suppress social media records (Doc. 668)

Defendant Franklin: Daubert motion to exclude testimony of Timothy Flohrschutz (Doc. 611)

Motion to suppress wiretap evidence (Doc. 647)

Motion to suppress social media records (Doc. 648)

Defendant Duncan: None

Defendant Brown: Motion to suppress (Doc. 593), R&R filed 7/20/22 (Doc. 694)

Motion in limine (Doc. 700)

Defendant Toombs: None

ANTICIPATED MOTIONS: All defendants plan to file motions in limine.

TRIAL WITNESSES:

Government: 60 with stipulations; 80 without stipulations

Defendant Smith: 1-5 witnesses; Defendant will not testify

Defendant Franklin: 5-8 witnesses; Defendant may testify

Defendant Duncan: 1-3 witnesses; Defendant may testify

Defendant Brown: 1-2 witnesses; Defendant will not testify

Defendant Toombs: 1-3 witnesses; Defendant may testify

TRIAL EXHIBITS:

Government: 700 exhibits

Defendant Smith: 15 exhibits

Defendant Franklin: 20-30 exhibits

Defendant Duncan: 20-30 exhibits

Defendant Brown: 10-20 exhibits

Defendant Toombs: 10 exhibits

DEFENSES:

Defendant Smith:

(X) defense of general denial

() defenses of general denial and

Defendant Franklin:

(X) defense of general denial

() defenses of general denial and

Defendant Duncan:

(X) defense of general denial

() defenses of general denial and

Defendant Brown:

(X) defense of general denial

() defenses of general denial and

Defendant Toombs:

(X) defense of general denial

() defenses of general denial and

POSSIBLE DISPOSITION:

Defendant Smith:

(X) Definitely for trial

() Possibly for trial

() Motion to continue to be filed

() Likely a plea will be worked out

Defendant Franklin:

(X) Definitely for trial

() Possibly for trial

() Motion to continue to be filed

() Likely a plea will be worked out

Defendant Duncan:

(X) Definitely for trial

() Possibly for trial

() Motion to continue to be filed

() Likely a plea will be worked out

Defendant Brown:

(X) Definitely for trial

() Possibly for trial

() Motion to continue to be filed

() Likely a plea will be worked out

Defendant Toombs:

(X) Definitely for trial

() Possibly for trial

() Motion to continue to be filed

() Likely a plea will be worked out

TRIAL TIME: 3 weeks

Government's case including jury selection: 2 weeks

Defendant Smith's case: ½ - 1 day

Defendant Franklin's case: ½ - 1 day

Defendant Duncan's case: ½ day

Defendant Brown's case: 1 day

Defendant Toombs' case: ½ day

STIPULATIONS: The Government plans to propose stipulations regarding chemistry, business records, chain of custody, foundation only as it pertains to wire intercepts, and foundation as to all exhibits generally.

Defendant Smith:

(X) not likely

() not appropriate

() likely as to:

() chain of custody

() chemist's reports

() prior felony conviction

() interstate nexus of firearm

() other: ________

Defendant Franklin:

() not likely

() not appropriate

(X) likely as to:

() chain of custody

() chemist's reports

() prior felony conviction

() interstate nexus of firearm

(X) foundation

Defendant Duncan:

() not likely

() not appropriate

(X) likely as to:

() chain of custody

() chemist's reports

() prior felony conviction

() interstate nexus of firearm

(X) foundation

Defendant Brown:

() not likely

() not appropriate

(X) likely as to:

() chain of custody

() chemist's reports

() prior felony conviction

() interstate nexus of firearm

(X) foundation

Defendant Toombs:

() not likely

() not appropriate

(X) likely as to:

() chain of custody

() chemist's reports

() prior felony conviction

() interstate nexus of firearm

(X) foundation

UNUSUAL QUESTIONS OF LAW: None

FILING DEADLINES:

Witness and Exhibit Lists:

Government: August 8, 2022

Defense: August 8, 2022

Counsel are requested to list witnesses in alphabetical order on their witness list.

Exhibit Index, Voir Dire, Jury Instructions: August 8, 2022

Jury instructions must comply with Local Rule 51.1

Motions in Limine: August 8, 2022

TRIAL SETTING: This case is specially set before Judge Kays August 29, 2022 through September 16, 2022 (Doc. 605)

OTHER:

() A _________-speaking interpreter is required.

() Other assistive devices: ___________________

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

United States v. Smith

United States District Court, Western District of Missouri
Jul 27, 2022
No. 19-00315-10-CR-W-DGK (W.D. Mo. Jul. 27, 2022)
Case details for

United States v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff, v. LADELE D. SMITH 1, ROY O. FRANKLN…

Court:United States District Court, Western District of Missouri

Date published: Jul 27, 2022

Citations

No. 19-00315-10-CR-W-DGK (W.D. Mo. Jul. 27, 2022)

Citing Cases

United States v. Belton

Accordingly, courts can rely on an officer's “expert opinion as to evidence in a wiretap application” when…