United States District Court, Southern District of New York
September 9, 2003
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CARL MOTTLEY, DEFENDANT(S)
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Laura Taylor Swain, District Judge
By Memorandum Order dated August 11, 2003, the Court denied Defendant's motion to suppress certain evidence. Defendant now moves for reconsideration of the decision upon his suppression motion. For the reasons set forth below, Defendant's motion is denied.
The standard to be applied in deciding reconsideration motions in criminal cases has not been clearly established. Neither the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure nor the Local Criminal Rules expressly provide for reconsideration motions. Defendant presumes, and the Government does not dispute, that the standard set by Rule 6.3 of this court's Local Civil Rules — requiring that a movant set forth concisely "the matters or controlling decisions which counsel believes the court has overlooked — is appropriate for analysis of the instant motion. Other judges of this district have applied the Rule 6.3 standard (or one substantially similar to it) in deciding criminal reconsideration motions. See United States v. Greenfield, No. 01 Cr. 401, 2001 WL 1230538, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 16, 2001) (applying Local Rule 6.3 standard "[g]iven the parties' positions, and the interests of justice"); U.S. v. Kurtz, No. 98 Cr. 733, 1999 WL [ Page 2]
349374, at *6 (S.D.N.Y. May 28, 1999) ("A motion to reconsider will not be granted unless the movant demonstrates that the court has overlooked controlling law or material facts.") Accordingly, the Court will apply the Local Rule 6.3 standard in rendering its decision.
Defendant's argument for reconsideration is nothing more than a restatement of the arguments laid out in his Reply memorandum. Both in the Reply and in the instant motion, Defendant attempts to raise a factual issue through the assertions of counsel as proffered in a legal memorandum.*fn1 As explained in the Court's earlier decision, absent personal knowledge, the assertions of an attorney cannot put a fact in dispute. See U.S. v. Gutierrez, No. 02 Cr. 1312, 2003 WL 21222377, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. May 27, 2003) ("An attorney's affidavit absent personal knowledge is insufficient to justify a suppression hearing.") Because Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the Court overlooked controlling precedent or material facts in deciding his suppression motion, the instant motion must be denied.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion is denied.