From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 26, 2012
Criminal Case No: 12-cr-00045-WYD (D. Colo. Sep. 26, 2012)

Opinion

Criminal Case No: 12-cr-00045-WYD

09-26-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. MATTHEW SMITH, a/k/a "Unc," a/k/a "Uncle Matt," a/k/a "Matt Matt," 2. GERARDO ARREDONDO, a/k/a "Bobbles," 3. GARY BARNETT, 4. GERMAIN CARDENAS, 5. KEITH FRANKLIN, a/k/a "Tre Times," a/k/a "Cooter," 6. MICHAEL GAYTON, 7. ELBERT GIFFORD, a/k/a "Bear," 8. JOHN LEWIS, a/k/a "Butch," 9. CHRISTOPHER LIGHTNER, 10. HARRIETT MADISON, 11. LAMAR MASON, a/k/a "Lil" KO," 12. MICHAEL MONROE, 13. CENECA ROBINSON, a/k/a "Red Flag," 14. THEODIS WALKER, a/k/a "Boo," 15. DERRICK WEBSTER, a/k/a "Web," and 16. CHRISTOPHER YOUNG, Defendants.


ORDER

On September 19, 2012, the parties filed a Joint Status Report, [ECF No. 385] informing the Court that the Government has provided the vast majority of discovery to the defendants and will continue to produce new materials as they arise, consistent with its Brady and Giglio obligations. The parties also requested that I set deadlines for motions, with different categories of motions set pursuant to a staggered case management schedule. On September 26, 2012, I held a status conference to develop a case management plan with the parties consistent with their request for staggered deadlines. In accordance with the proposed categories and deadlines discussed at the status conference, it is

ORDERED that all non-evidentiary motions known to Defendants including but not limited to discovery motions, motions attacking the indictment, and motions related to disclosure of co-defendant proffers, shall be filed by Friday, October 26, 2012, and the Government shall have 14 days to respond after the motions are filed. Once all responses have been filed, the Court will set a hearing on all pending non-evidentiary motions. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all non-wiretap motions to suppress shall be filed by Monday, December 17, 2012, and the Government shall have 21 days to respond after the motions are filed. In its responses, the Government shall give an estimate of how much time the Court should allocate for a hearing, whether there is any witness overlap such that multiple motions should be heard together, and whether the parties have agreed that such motions can be addressed in the same hearing. Once responses have been filed, the Court will set a hearing(s) on pending non-wiretap motions to suppress. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all "four-corners" motions or other motions attacking the wiretaps in this matter shall be filed within 30 days of the first date set by the court for a hearing on the non-wiretap suppression motions and the Government shall have 21 days to respond after the motions are filed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that all James motions, motions for severance, or expert witness motions shall be filed within 21 days after the Court rules on the wiretap motions and responses shall be due within 21 days after the motions are filed. Once all responses have been submitted, the Court will hold a status conference and hearing on these pending motions. At the status conference, the Court will set future case related deadlines.

BY THE COURT:

____________

WILEY Y. DANIEL,

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Smith

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Sep 26, 2012
Criminal Case No: 12-cr-00045-WYD (D. Colo. Sep. 26, 2012)
Case details for

United States v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. 1. MATTHEW SMITH, a/k/a "Unc,…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Date published: Sep 26, 2012

Citations

Criminal Case No: 12-cr-00045-WYD (D. Colo. Sep. 26, 2012)