Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. RODNEY McCARRON, Defendants.

ORDER

DAVID HERNDON, District Judge

Before the Court is defendant McCarron's Motion for Visitation (Doc. 391), requesting transport by the U.S. Marshall on April 2, 2008, from where he is currently being detained to Desloge, Missouri, so that he may view the body of his mother before her funeral. The Government opposes Defendant's request (Doc. 392), but suggests as an alternative, that the funeral home transport Ms. McCarron to the facility where Defendant is currently housed, so that he may view the body in a secured environment. This arrangement would be at the expense of Defendant and/or his family.

The U.S. Marshal's Office has indicated that there is insufficient time between the filing of Defendant's Motion and the date of the funeral to ensure proper security. Thus, allowing Defendant's request would present an unwarranted security risk. Therefore, said Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The Court extends its sympathies to Defendant and his family at their time of need. Unfortunately, however, it cannot find that Defendant's request to be transported to the funeral home for a viewing is feasible, considering the enhanced security risk it would create. Yet, the Court finds the Government's proposed alternative relief to be feasible. Accordingly, the Court grants the right for Defendant's family, at their expense if they so choose, to arrange for the funeral home to transport Ms. McCarron to the facility where Defendant is currently housed, allowing Defendant private visitation time to spend his last moments with his mother before she is laid to rest.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

U.S. v. McCARRON
(Apr 1, 2008)