Summary
concluding that facts were not egregious enough to warrant suppression and noting that "nearly every court" that has ruled on a no-contact rule violation in a criminal law context has found that suppression of a statement is "an inappropriate remedy for a lawyer's ethical violation"
Summary of this case from United States v. SabeanOpinion
Crim. No. 09-304 (JMR/JJK).
February 23, 2010
David J. MacLaughlin, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for Plaintiff.
Doug Olson and Reynaldo A. Aligada, Jr., Assistant Federal Defenders, counsel for Defendant.
ORDER
The above matter comes before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes dated January 22, 2010. No objections have been filed to that Report and Recommendation in the time period permitted. Based on the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court now makes and enters the following Order.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant's Pretrial Motion to Suppress Fruits of Unlawful Arrest and Search and Seizure (Doc. No. 18), is DENIED;
2. Defendant's Pretrial Motion to Suppress Statements (Doc. No. 19), is DENIED; and
3. Defendant's Motion for Severance of Tax Counts (Doc. No. 20), is GRANTED and counts 1-3 are severed from counts 4-12.