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. Goodwin

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 24, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
KEITH DAVID GOODWIN, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Anthony W. Ishii Chief United States District Judge

ORDER RE EX PARTE DEFENSE MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS FOR APPOINTED DEFENSE INVESTIGATOR

On September 23, 2008, Defendant filed his Ex Parte Defense Motion For Additional Funds For Appointed Defense Investigator. In Defendant's motion, Defendant requests additional funds for investigative work already done by appointed defense investigator Rick Barclay since the conclusion of the jury trial in March 2008 and for further investigative work to be done. The court has reviewed the motion and the included facts and information in support of the motion.

The court finds that, based upon all of the information available to the court and the sentencing issues raised to date by Defendant, granting Defendant's motion is unwarranted, except as specified below. In addition, as conceded by Defendant, Defendant had failed to request such funding and the justification for such funding in advance of the post trial work done by Mr. Barclay. Thus, the court did not have the opportunity to accept, reject or modify such funding or to require further justification for any such funding before the services were rendered. Furthermore, the court had previously denied Defendant's motion for additional investigator funds in an order filed and served on August 14, 2008. And the issue of investigator funding was discussed at Defendant's sentencing hearing held on September 2, 2008.

Nonetheless, it appears from Defendant's motion that at least some of Mr. Barclay's work done after the jury trial and up to the date of the sentencing hearing on September 2, 2008 may objectively merit consideration for compensation by the court. The court will permit Mr. Barclay to submit a billing statement for work done after the jury trial up to the sentencing hearing on September 2, 2008. The court, in its discretion, will determine the amount, if any, of compensation to award Mr. Barclay for work done during that limited time period. As a note of caution, the court will not compensate an investigator for appearances at any post jury trial proceedings in this case unless the relevancy of such appearances are shown to the court in advance of any such appearances.

At paragraph 6 of Defendant's motion, defendant states that there are three individuals whose statements may be relevant to a sentencing issue. Defendant may submit an ex parte motion for investigator funds for those three individuals. However, any such motion must specify, in detail, the names of the individuals, a proffer of their proposed statements and the relevancy of such statements to any sentencing issue.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Ex Parte Defense Motion For Additional Funds For Appointed Defense Investigator is DENIED, except that appointed defense investigator Rick Barclay may submit a billing statement to the court for investigative work done from the end of the jury trial in March 2008 to the date of the sentencing hearing on September 2, 2008. No other compensation for post jury trial investigative work done by Mr. Barclay will be allowed by the court except by subsequent order of the court upon prior receipt of a motion by Defendant submitted before any such work is performed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20080924

© 1992-2008 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.