Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Muto

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


December 10, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
RICHARD A. MUTO, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Richard J. Arcara Chief Judge United States District Court

ORDER

This case was referred to Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). On September 4, 2009, Magistrate Judge Scott filed an Amended Report and Recommendation, recommending that the government's prior motion for reconsideration be granted; that defendant's initial motions to suppress his statements be denied; and that Count II of the Indictment be deemed timely.

Defendant filed objections to the Report and Recommendation on September 25, 2009, and the government filed a response thereto on October 20, 2009. Oral argument on the objections was held on November 6, 2009.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court must make a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. Upon a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation, and after reviewing the submissions and hearing argument from the parties, the Court adopts the proposed findings of the Report and Recommendation. At oral argument, defendant cited to Dickerson v. U.S., 530 U.S. 428 (2000), in support of his argument in favor of suppression. Dickerson merely struck down 18 U.S.C. § 3501 as unconstitutional and re-affirmed Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). See id. at 437 ("This case therefore turns on whether the Miranda Court announced a constitutional rule or merely exercised its supervisory authority to regulate evidence in the absence of congressional direction."); id. at 444 ("In sum, we conclude that Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively. Following the rule of stare decisis, we decline to overrule Miranda ourselves."). Dickerson thus does not require a different course of action.

Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in Magistrate Judge Scott's Report and Recommendation, the government's prior motion for reconsideration is granted; defendant's initial motions to suppress his statements are denied; and Count II of the Indictment is deemed timely.

The parties are to appear before this Court at 9:00 a.m. on Friday, December 11, 2009 for a status conference.

SO ORDERED.

20091210

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.