LYNN ADELMAN, District Judge
On August 26, 2000, I issued a decision regarding defendants Pedro Martimez and Andrew Acosta's motions for orders suppressing statements they made to FBI Special Agent Daniel Craft and other law enforcement officers. This order amends two passages of that decision. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the current text at page 23, ¶ 2, which currently reads:
On the other side, though, the Fifth Amendment and Miranda establish well-known requirements to advise suspects of the right to counsel, while any comparable rights under the Sixth Amendment are less well known.
IS REPLACED WITH::
On the other side, though, the Fifth Amendment and Miranda establish well-known requirements to advise suspects of the right to counsel, while any comparable duty to advise under the Sixth Amendment is far less well known.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the current text at the top of page 26, which reads:
Regardless of whether exercised under the Constitution or the court's supervisory powers, suppression is a harsh remedy and is reserved for violations which infringe on basic rights . See Lyn M. Morton, Seeking the Elusive Remedy for Prosecutorial Misconduct: Suppression. Dismissal. or Discipline?, 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1083, 1100, 1102 n. 135 (1994).
IS REPLACED WITH:
Regardless of whether exercised under the Constitution or the court's supervisory powers, suppression is a harsh remedy and is reserved for the most drastic prosecutorial misconduct cases. See Lyn M. Morton, Seeking the Elusive Remedy for Prosecutorial Misconduct: Suppression, Dismissal, or Discipline?, 7 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 1083, 1100, 1102 (1994).
(Note that the citation to note 135 is deleted.)