Opinion
NO. 1:08-CR-00046.
May 21, 2009
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Pro Se Motions to Withdraw Previous Motions to Suppress and Substitute with Pro Se Motion (doc. 47), Preserve Evidence and for Disclosure of Informant (doc. 45), Requesting Grand Jury Transcript and Bill of Particulars (doc. 48), to Have Audio Tapes Examined (doc. 49), to Obtain Evidence (doc. 58), to Enhance Audio Tapes (doc. 59), Dismiss Several Counts of the Indictment (doc. 64), to be Present at all Hearings and Court Dates (doc. 65), Requesting Documents Regarding Bank Statement (doc. 66), to Turn Over Names of Bank Representative (doc. 67), and to Subpoena Witnesses (doc. 69), and the government's responses to these motions (docs. 46, 52, 61, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76). The Court will address each Motion in turn.
I. Documents 45, 74, 58
In document 45, Defendant requests the recording device used by the Cincinnati Police in the undercover buys be preserved (doc. 45). The government represents that it has ordered the Cincinnati Police to do so (doc. 46). Defendant further requests to view a bank statement identified as evidence (doc. 45). The government represents that it has previously furnished Defendant's counsel with this evidence (doc. 46). Finally, in response to Defendant's request for the identity of the informant used by the Cincinnati Police, the government states that it will reveal the identity at the suppression hearing, and that it has met its obligation under the Rules of Discovery (Id.). On the basis of these representations, the Court finds it proper to deny as moot Defendant's motion (doc. 45).
Defendant makes an identical request in document 74, and the Court denies as moot Defendant's motion in document 74 for the same reasons (doc. 74)
Defendant makes an identical request in document 58, and the Court denies as moot Defendant's motion in document 58 for the same reasons (doc. 58).
II. Document 47
III. Document 48
pro se Id., United States v. Azad 809 F.2d 291295Id
IV. Documents 49 and 59
In response to documents 49 and 59, in which Defendant requests to have audio tapes examined, the government agrees to have the Cincinnati Police Department attempt to enhance the quality of the audio tapes (docs. 52, 61). In light of this representation, the Court denies as moot Defendant's motions (docs. 49, 59).
V. Document 64
In document 64, Defendant requests the Court dismiss Counts 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the Indictment, arguing a "lack of evidence" (doc. 64). The Court agrees with the government that as no evidence has been presented yet, this motion must be denied as premature (doc. 72).
VI. Document 65
In document 65, Defendant requests that he be present at all motion hearings and court dates (doc. 65). As it is the Court's practice for criminal defendants to be present at such proceedings, the Court grants this motion.
VII. Document 67
In document 67, Defendant requests the name of the bank representatives the government intends to call as witnesses (doc. 67). The government states that as soon as the witnesses are designated by their respective companies, their names will be furnished to Defendant's counsel (doc. 75). Based on the government's representation, the Court denies as moot Defendant's motion (doc. 67).
VIII. Document 69
In document 69, Defendant makes a motion to subpoena certain witnesses (doc. 69). As the government suggests, the issue of which witnesses to subpoena is one best dealt with by Defendant's counsel. Therefore, this motion is denied as moot.
IX. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Withdraw Motion to Suppress (doc. 47), GRANTS Defendant's Motion to be Present at all Hearings and Court Dates (doc. 65), and DENIES each of Defendant's remaining motions (docs. 45, 48, 49, 58, 59, 64, 66, 67, 69).
SO ORDERED.