United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
MARTIN MAY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
case comes before the Court on the Magistrate Judge's
Report and Recommendation ("R&R") ,
recommending that this Court deny in part and grant as moot
in part Defendant Jackson's Motion to Suppress .
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Defendant filed
objections to the R&R . The facts and procedural
history of this case are set forth in the R&R and are
fully incorporated herein by reference. After due
consideration, the Court enters the following Order.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court reviews the
Magistrate's R&R for clear error if no objections are
filed. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party files
objections, however, the district court must determine de
nova any part of the Magistrate Judge's disposition
that is the subject of a proper objection. Id.; Fed.
R. Crim. P. 59(b)(3). As Defendant filed objections to the
R&R, the Court reviews the Magistrate Judge's
findings and recommendations regarding these conclusions on a
de nova basis. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
R&R, the Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court (1)
grant as moot in part the Motion  as to Defendant's
statements regarding where Defendant obtained the gun; and
(2) deny in part as to Defendant's alleged statements
that he made to Thompson alone (to the effect of "let it
slide, " it was not his gun, and it was Red's gun).
Defendant only objects to the portion of the R&R which
concerns the alleged statements made to Thompson alone.
argues that pursuant to the 10th Circuit's opinion in
Earnest v. Dorsey, 87 F.3d 1123, 1131 (10th
Cir. 1996), Jackson's alleged statements are too
amorphous and do not bear sufficient "indicia of
reliability" to be admitted against him. In
Earnest, the Tenth Circuit was tasked with
determining whether the introduction of an out of court
statement made by an unavailable coconspirator violated the
defendant's Confrontation Clause rights. In doing so, the
Tenth Circuit stated, "[i]n general, an out-of-court
statement may constitutionally be introduced against a
defendant only if the statement bears . adequate 'indicia
of reliability."' Id. at 1130 (quoting Ohio v.
Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66 (1980)).
Court does not find Earnest persuasive in this case. First,
Earnest arose in the context of a possible Confrontation
Clause violation. As the statements at issue here involve
Defendant's own statements, the Confrontation Clause is
not implicated. Second, the "indicia of
reliability" language relied on by the 10th Circuit came
from Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56 (1980), which is
no longer good law following Crawford v. Washington,
541 U.S. 36 (2004). Finally, the Court finds Defendant's
objection ultimately goes to the weight of the evidence, not
its admissibility. Defendant will be able to cross-examine
Thompson regarding the veracity of his claims during trial.
As Defendant has not cited any other authority which he
contends supports his assertions, his Objections are
OVERRULED and the R&R is
ADOPTED as the Order of this Court.
accordance with the foregoing, the Court
ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R&R
. Defendant's Motion to Suppress  is
DENIED, in part as to the statements the
government claims that Jackson made to Thompson alone-to the
effect of "let it slide, " it was not his gun, and
it was Red's gun-and GRANTED AS
MOOT, in part as to his response to the question
from either Thompson or Rosser as to where he got the
firearm, which answer the government intends not to admit at
Motion to Participate in Voir Dire  is also
trial in this action is hereby set to begin on Tuesday, May
29, 2018 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 2107. The pretrial
conference will be held on Wednesday, May 23, 2018 at 11:00
A.M. in Courtroom 2107. By noon on Wednesday, May 9, 2018,
the parties are to file the following: motions in
limine and proposed voir dire questions. By
noon on Wednesday, May 9, 2018, the Government must file a
brief summary of the indictment that the parties can rely on
for voir dire. By noon on Wednesday, May 16, 2018,
the parties are to file responses to motions in
limine and any objections and to those items listed
time is allowed through May 29, 2018, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), to give counsel for
Defendant and the Government the reasonable time necessary
for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise
of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice
served outweigh the best interest of the public and the
Defendant in a speedy trial and are consistent with both the
best interest of the public and individual justice in this