IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 14, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
COURTNEY D. HURT, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Pending before the Court is Hurt's pro se November 13, 2007 motion for new trial (Doc. 66).*fn1 Because Hurt's motion is untimely, the Court DENIES the motion.
Any motion for a new trial filed more than seven days after the verdict is too late. See Fed.R.Crim.P. 33(b)(2); United States v. McGee, 408 F.3d 966, 979 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Washington, 184 F.3d 653, 659 (7th Cir. 1999). Only Rule 33 motions grounded on new evidence have longer time limits. United States v. Cavender, 228 F.3d 792, 802 (7th Cir. 2002).
On July 31, 2007, a jury found Hurt guilty of the charge contained in the indictment (Docs. 52 & 53). This motion was filed on November 13, 2007. Clearly his motion is untimely unless the motion is based on newly discovered evidence. A review of Hurt's pro se motion indicates that it is not based on newly discovered evidence. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Hurt's motion as untimely.
Further, the Court notes that Hurt filed this motion pro se despite being represented by court appointed counsel throughout these proceedings.*fn2 Because Hurt is represented by Renee Schooley, the Court insists that Hurt file motions only through his attorney. See Johnson v. United States, 196 F.3d 802, 805 (7th Cir. 1999)(" A district court is entitled to insist that a represented party file papers only through counsel."). The Court ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to accept only the pleadings that are filed through attorney, Renee Schooley, on behalf of Hurt.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court