Bookmark
PDF
Share
CaseIQ

U.S. v. ACOSTA, (E.D.Wis. 2000)

United States District Court, E.D. Wisconsin.

Oct 2, 2000

Judgment

Subsequent
References

CaseIQ

Case Information

CITATION CODES

citation codes

DOCKET NO.

Case No. 98-Cr-0104

Attorney(S)

Defendant Andrew Acosta, Gregory R. Parr, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Mohammed Ayesh, Michael S. Holzman, Attorney at Law Waukesha, WI. Defendant Doug Beyreis, William U. Burke, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Christopher Colton, Robert E. Haney, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Carlos Diaz, David Mandell, Attorney At Law Madison, WI. Change from previous edition. Shaun Dougherty, John W. Campion, Attorney at Law Racine, WI. Jorge Espada, Thomas G. Wilmouth, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Vernon Fields, Paul Barrett, Attorney at Law Elkhorn, WI. Defendant Felix Guzman, Joan M. Boyd. Attorney at Law Shawano, WI. Defendant Jerry Guzman, Sheldon B. Nagelberg, Attorney at Law Chicago, IL. Defendant Bernardo Hernandez, Leonard O. Kachinsky, Attorney at Law Neenah, WI. Defendant Raul Maldonado, Michael J. Backes, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Daniel Martimez, Michael C. Goode, Attorney at Law Chicago, IL. Defendant Pedro Martimez, Dianne M. Erickson, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Gamaliel Matos, Glenn C. Reynolds, Attorney at Law Madison, WI. Defendant Natanael Matos, David J. Lang, Attorney at Law Brookfield, WI. Defendant Antonio Mendez, Dale R. Nikolay, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Alvaro Mendoza, Thomas J. Kasen, Attorney at Law Wauwatosa, WI. Defendant Daniel Mendoza, Joe E. Krernkoski, Attorney at Law Racine, WI. Defendant Raciel Mendoza, Laurence M. Moon, Attorney at Law Whitefish Bay, WI. Defendant Raymond Mendoza, Michael W. Schnake, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Maico Navejar, Robert J. Baratki, Attorney at Law Racine, WI. Defendant Larry Olson, Matt J. Ricci, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Thomas Overland, John A. Cabranes, Attorney at Law Racine, WI. Defendant Raymond Rivera, Douglas M. Bihier, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Michael Rosado, Adarn C. Essling, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Michael Turner, Christopher J. Lowe, Attorney at Law Wauwatosa, WI. Defendant Mark Turner, Scott P. Phillips, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Alejandro Vallejo, Winston P. Brown, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Wilfredo Vasquez, Patrick W. Blegen, Attorney at Law Chicago, IL. Defendant Herminio Vega, Allan D. Krezrninski, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. Defendant Robert Weinstock, Patrick K. Cafferty, Attorney at Law Racine, WI. No Defendant Listed Michael J. Steinle, Attorney at Law Milwaukee, WI. AUSA Karine Moreno-Taxrnan, Office of the U.S. Attorney Milwaukee, WI.

JUDGES

Lynn S. Adelman

ACTS

No Acts

See more information ... Less ...

AMENDMENT TO DECISION AND ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS PEDRO MARTINEZ AND ANDREW ACOSTA'S MOTIONS TO SUPPRESS STATEMENTS

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.)