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. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

August 26, 2019

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
STAFON JAMAR DAVIS DATE DEADLINE

          SCHEDULING ORDER

          CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Pursuant to the Court's instructions at the Status Conference held on July 11, 2019, the parties submitted a proposed joint scheduling order. See doc 52 (Minute Entry); doc. 64 (Proposed Schedule). The Court has considered the parties' submission and adopts the proposed deadlines as follows:

DATE
DEADLINE

August 1, 2019

-- Government's Motion for Reciprocal Discovery

September 1, 2019

-- Defendant's Delivery of Reciprocal Discovery to Government[1]

--Discovery from both parties to be provided on a rolling basis hereafter unless otherwise ordered.

October 1, 2019

-- Motions Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)

-- Defendant's Notice of Insanity Defense and/or Expert Evidence of a Mental Condition Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(a)-(b)

October 15, 2019

-- Defendant's Notice of Alibi Defense Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2

-- Government's Request for Mental Examination Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c)(1)(B)

November 1, 2019

-- Responses to Motions Filed Pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)

December 2, 2019

-- Defendant's Submission of Evidence in Mitigation to U.S. Attorney's Office

December 9, 2019

-- Government's Submission to United States Department of Justice of Memorandum and U.S. Attorney Recommendation re: Death Penalty

January 6, 2020

-- Government's Notice Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)

February 7, 2020

-- Defendant's Notice Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(b)(1)(C)

February 21, 2020

-- Government's Supplemental Expert Notice Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 702 and Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G)

March 21, 2020

-- Parties' Notice Pursuant to Fed.R.Evid. 404(b), 609, 807 and 902

-- Motions for Judicial Notice

-- Trial Stipulations

April 1, 2020

-- Government's Notice of Intent to Seek or Not Seek Death Penalty

         The Court also adopts the parties' proposals for tentative deadlines for pre-trial procedures. If the U.S. Attorney General elects to seek the death penalty, the Court will revisit the remainder of this scheduling order with the parties to address motions pertaining to capital punishment. Although the deadlines are tentative, as they are calculated based on the days before an as-yet-undetermined trial date, the Court emphasizes that they are purely provisional and subject to the modification at the discretion of the District Judge. The tentative pre-trial deadlines are adopted as follows:

Trial-120

-- Pretrial Motions in Limine

Trial-106

-- Responses to Motions in Limine

Trial-99

-- Replies in Support of Motions in Limine

Trial-90

-- Hearing on Motions in Limine and Pretrial Admission of Evidence

Trial-30

-- Supplemental Hearing on Pretrial Admission of Evidence, if Needed

-- Additional Stipulations

Trial-21

-- Proposed Voir Dire and Jury Instructions

-- Remaining Giglio/Jencks/Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 Disclosures

Trial-14

-- Objections to Proposed Voir Dire and Jury Instructions

Trial-8

-- Trial Memoranda (if needed)

-- Parties' witness and exhibit lists emailed to Courtroom Deputy (in PDF and Word formats)

-- Parties' trial exhibits in electronic format (on USB drive) to Courtroom Deputy

Trial-7

-- Pretrial Conference

Trial

-- Trial

         Since this case has been previously designated complex, the statutory time limits imposed by 18 U.S.C. § 1361 for pretrial proceedings are tolled. Doc. 49

         SO ORDERED.

---------

Notes:

[1] Defendant filed his Motion for Discovery shortly before his arraignment. Doc. 23. At defendant's arraignment, the Government indicated that it would follow its liberal discovery policy in this case. See doc. 30. The Government has filed its Motion for Reciprocal Discovery, which stands unopposed. Doc. 71. As the requested schedule reflects that the parties have agreed to provide discovery to each other on a rolling basis, the Court infers that neither opposes the requested discovery. The Court, ...


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.