Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

United States v. Parsons

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 7, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,
v.
MICHAEL WAYNE PARSONS, Defendant.

          FINDINGS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND ORDERS

          Cheryl R. Zwart United States Magistrate Judge

         Liberally construed, Defendant's pro se letter, (Filing No. 50), raises:

• A motion to recuse;
• A motion to suppress the evidence obtained pursuant to a search warrant signed by the undersigned magistrate judge and for Franks hearing;
• A motion to strike all government evidence disclosed after the Rule 16 initial disclosure deadline;
• A motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and on the basis of diplomatic immunity;
• A motion to dismiss the indictment for failing to allege a criminal offense; and
• A motion to dismiss for violating Defendant's rights to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment and the Speedy Trial Act.

         For the reasons stated below, the undersigned magistrate judge will deny Defendant's motion to recuse and motion to exclude the government's evidence as untimely disclosed, and recommends that Defendant's motions to suppress and motions to dismiss be denied without a hearing.

         The court will not rule of Defendant's motion to transfer the case to the North Platte trial docket absent affording the government an opportunity to respond.

         Motion to Recuse

         Every judicial officer must satisfy herself that she is actually unbiased toward the parties in each case and that her impartiality is not reasonably subject to question.

The judge presiding over a case is in the best position to appreciate the implications of those matters alleged in a recusal motion. In deciding whether to recuse [her]self, the trial judge must carefully weigh the policy of promoting public confidence in the judiciary against the possibility that those questioning his impartiality might be seeking to avoid the adverse consequences of [her] presiding over their case.

         In re Kansas Public Employees Retirement System, 85 F.3d 1353, 1358 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting In re Drexel,861 F.2d 1307, 1312 (2d Cir. 1988); see also United States v. Balistrieri,779 F.2d 1191, 1202-03 (7th Cir. 1985) (reasoning that decisions with respect to disqualification ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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