Summary
granting an unopposed motion for additional peremptory challenges, which requested an additional two peremptory challenges per defendant, for a total of eighteen peremptory challenges, and an additional four peremptory challenges for the government
Summary of this case from United States v. RazoOpinion
No. CR 14-1362-TUC-JAS (LAB)
05-05-2016
United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Stephen Edward Smith, et al. Defendants.
ORDER
Pending before the Court is a Report and Recommendation issued by Magistrate Judge Bowman. In the Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Bowman recommends denying Defendant's motion to sever. As the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation appropriately resolved the motion, the objections are denied.
The Court reviews de novo the objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). The Court reviews for clear error the unobjected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation. See Johnson v. Zema Systems Corp., 170 F.3d 734, 739 (7th Cir. 1999); see also Conley v. Crabtree, 14 F. Supp. 2d 1203, 1204 (D. Or. 1998).
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: (1) Magistrate Judge Bowman's Report and Recommendation (Doc. 182) is accepted and adopted. (2) The motion to sever (Doc. 146) is denied. (3) The Court notes there are also three unopposed motions that are pending before the Court: (a) motion for alternating peremptory challenges (Doc. 147), (b) motion for attorney in-part conducted voir dire (Doc. 148), and (c) motion for additional peremptory challenges (Doc. 151). These unopposed motions (Docs. 147, 148, 151) are granted. (4) Lastly, the Court notes that it is aware of a pending and disputed motion regarding the exclusion of emails (Doc. 152). The Court is in the process of reviewing the briefs, authority, and underlying record regarding this motion. The Court will rule on this motion as soon as possible, but notes that it has many other fully briefed motions and other matters to address in many other cases as well. As such, the Court expects that an order will be issued on this motion sometime within the next 30 days.
The Court notes that the standard Criminal Trial Scheduling Order issued in this case (and the Court's other cases) already provides that the parties shall proceed via alternating strikes, and shall also have the opportunity to directly ask questions of the jury upon consultation with the Court during voir dire. --------
DATED this 5th day of May, 2016.
/s/_________
James A. Soto
United States District Judge