Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Hopkins

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


February 6, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
LOUIS E. HOPKINS, A/K/A "LOU," DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

I. Introduction

Now before the Court is Hopkins' February 5, 2009 motion to reconsider Defendant's motion for leave (Doc. 56). Specifically, Hopkins moves the Court to reconsider its Order denying his motion for leave to file suppression motion in light of the grand jury returning a superseding indictment containing five additional counts against him. The Court presumes that the Government opposes the motion. Based on the following, the Court grants the motion to reconsider.

II. Analysis

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(C) requires that motions to suppress evidence be filed before trial. Rule 12(c) allows the Court to set a deadline for the parties to file pretrial motions, including motions to suppress, and permits the Court to set a motion hearing. Under Rule 12(e), however, "A party 'waives any Rule 12(b)(3) defense, objection, or request not raised by the deadline the court sets under Rule 12(c) or by any extension the court sets.' Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e). However, the district court may, for good cause, the court may 'grant relief from the waiver.'"See United States v. Salahuddin, 509 F.3d 858, 860 (7th Cir. 2007)(quoting United States Mancillas, 183 F.3d 682, 703 (7th Cir. 1999)).

Here, the Court set a deadline for pre-trial motions under Rule 12(c), and the defendant failed to meet that deadline. He has thereby waived any Rule 12(b)(3) defenses or objections, unless the Court permits such filing upon a showing of good cause.

On January 21, 2009, the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against Hopkins containing five new offenses: Counts 2-4 allege distribution of a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 841(b)(1)(C); Counts 5-6 allege tampering with a witness in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(1) and Count 1 alleges unlawful transportation of firearms by a felon in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) -- this count was changed to include two additional firearms (Doc. 47). Hopkins contends that despite of being aware of the alleged incriminating statements since November 18, 2008, the superseding indictment filed on January 21, 2009 presents new and previously unforseen issues regarding these statements. Further, Hopkins contends that the new charges in the superseding indictment have caused him to re-examine the Government's case and reconsider its defense strategy. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that Hopkins has established good cause to warrant the Court extending the time to file pre-trial motions.

III. Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Hopkins' motion to reconsider Defendant's motion for leave (Doc. 56). The Court ALLOWS Hopkins up to and including February 13, 2009 to file pre-trial motions. Further, the Court ALLOWS the Government ten (10) days from the date of the filing of the motion to respond.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David R Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

20090206

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.