Professional Documents
Culture Documents
1
2
4
5
10
17 DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
24
(Expedited Ruling Requested)
25
(Expedited Oral Argument Requested)
26
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 134 Filed 04/11/17 Page 2 of 3
4 the Alternative, Motion for Trial by Jury [Doc. 132 the Order and Doc. 130 the Motion]. In
5 his Motion, Defendant requested a dismissal of this proceeding in its entirety on the grounds that
6 it is barred by the one-year statute of limitations, or, and in the alternative, to grant Defendant
7 his right to a jury trial. On April 11, 2017, the Court denied the Motion stating it was filed after
8 the deadline set by the Court for pre-trial motions, and because the Court has already considered
9 and ruled on the issues raised in Defendants Motion.
10 In his Motion, Defendant presented points and authorities showing that these proceedings
11 are barred by the one-year statute of limitations contained in 18 U.S.C.A. 3285. As was stated,
12 the Government brought this criminal contempt prosecution under 18 U.S.C. 401 and the
13 Court issued its Order to Show Cause without the application or consideration of 18 U.S.C.
14 402. Further, Defendant presented points and authorities supporting his right to a trial by jury
15 under 18 U.S.C.A. 3691, as a matter of federal statutory law. In its Order, the Court
16 immediately denied all relief requested without any analysis whatsoever of the applicable facts
17 and law. Instead, the Court merely stated that the Motion was barred because of an arbitrary
18 motion cut-off date, and that the court had already ruled on these matters raised in the Motion.
19 However, the court never ruled upon the legal arguments set forth in the Motion because they
20 were never raised by prior counsel for the Defendant.
21 There exists no prejudice to anyone by staying these proceedings. The Courts denial of a
22 ruling on the Motion based upon the merits of the Motion is a fundamental denial of the due
23 process rights of the Defendant. There exists reversible error and irreparable harm to the
24 Defendant by denying the stay. There exists a strong likelihood of the Court of Appeals
25 reversing the Courts ruling on the Motion. Based upon the foregoing, the Defendant is entitled
26 to a stay so that he may file for relief from and a ruling by the Court of Appeals.
2
Case 2:16-cr-01012-SRB Document 134 Filed 04/11/17 Page 3 of 3
10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
11 I hereby certify that on April 11, 2017, I electronically transmitted the foregoing Motion
to the Clerk of the Court through the CM/ECF system, which will send a Notice of Electronic
12
Filing to all CM/ECF registrants for this matter.
13
/s/ Dina D. Horsman
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26