Opinion
Case No. 4:09-mj-03016-JTK.
June 1, 2010
ORDER
Pending before the Court is plaintiff's Motion to Submit the Case to the Court for Disposition Based Upon the Record (DE #16). In the motion, the Government claims to have fully developed its evidence during the November 10, 2009, detention hearing before United States Magistrate Judge Henry L. Jones, Jr. The Government states it does not have any new or different evidence to submit and has no objection if the defendant wishes to put on additional evidence. In response to the Court's directive to file a responsive pleading, defendant's counsel states that he objects to the Government's motion.
The United States Supreme Court has held that "the Confrontation Clause guarantees the defendant a face-to-face meeting with witnesses appearing before the trier of fact." Maryland v. Craig, 497 U.S. 836, 844 (1990). The Supreme Court has further held that "the right to confrontation is a trial right designed to prevent improper restrictions on the types of questions that defense counsel may ask during cross-examination." Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (emphasis in original) (citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 157 (1970) ("[I]t is this literal right to `confront' the witness at the time of trial that forms the core of the values furthered by the Confrontation Clause") and Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719, 725 (1968) ("The right to confrontation is basically a trial right")).
At the detention hearing, the defendant, through counsel, agreed to proceed before a magistrate judge. This Court did not preside over that hearing, and the defendant has a right to confront the witnesses against him before the Court. Therefore, the motion is denied. The trial in this matter will be rescheduled by separate order.
In his Motion to Continue (DE #14), defendant waived his right to a jury trial and requested a bench trial. By Order dated March 31, 2010 (DE #15), the Court noted defendant's waiver of the jury demand.
IT IS SO ORDERED.