United States v. Muse
1:17-cr-02008
D.N.M.Oct 21, 2019Background
- Defendant Darius Muse filed a Motion to Suppress Evidence on May 1, 2019, after the Court's April 1, 2019 deadline for pretrial motions; trial had been continued to May 20, 2019.
- The United States moved to strike the suppression motion as untimely under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3), arguing Muse had known the basis for the motion for many months and showed no good cause.
- Muse responded arguing procedural defects in the government's motion (failure to confer) and defended the late filing, explaining counsel’s heavy workload related to a separate death-penalty matter.
- The Court rejected Muse’s procedural argument for summary denial (found government’s omission not fatal under local criminal rules) and addressed the Rule 12 timeliness question.
- The Court concluded Muse’s one-month delay was excused: it accepted counsel’s workload as good cause, found the Tenth Circuit’s Bowline/Davis framework controlling, and determined the policy concerns behind appellate waiver cases were not implicated for a pretrial district-court suppression filing.
- The Court denied the United States’ Motion to Strike and ordered the government to file a response to the suppression motion by November 4, 2019.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(c)(3) | Muse's suppression motion is untimely; no good cause; must be struck. | Counsel explained one-month delay caused by heavy workload tied to another case (good cause). | Court found good cause for one-month delay and denied motion to strike. |
| Local procedural compliance for motion to strike | Government did not confer but presumed opposition; LR-CR 47 does not mandate concurrence recitation for opposed motions. | Govt failed to seek concurrence and thus should be summarily denied under local rules (citing civil rules). | Court declined to summarily deny the government's motion; LR-CR 47.2 does not require concurrence language for opposed motions. |
| Reliance on civil sanction precedents | Government relies on criminal-rule standard (Bowline/Davis) requiring good cause; civil five-factor sanction framework inapplicable. | Defendant urged civil-case five-factor standard to argue striking is an extreme sanction used sparingly. | Court held civil sanction cases inapplicable; Rule 12(c)(3) and Bowline control. |
| Policy concerns about late suppression claims | Govt stressed Rule 12’s policy to raise defects early. | Defendant noted suppression was raised pretrial and policy rationales for denying late review are not implicated. | Court agreed policy concerns (as in Burke) did not preclude relief and exercised discretion to find good cause. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Bowline, 917 F.3d 1227 (10th Cir. 2019) (Rule 12(c)(3) requires good cause to consider untimely pretrial motions)
- Davis v. United States, 411 U.S. 233 (U.S. 1973) (early raising of certain defects preferred to allow cure before trial)
- United States v. Burke, 633 F.3d 984 (10th Cir. 2011) (policy reasons for requiring district-court suppression rulings and appellate hesitance)
- United States v. Trobee, 551 F.3d 835 (8th Cir. 2009) (absence of prejudice/delay relevant but not dispositive on good-cause analysis)
- United States v. Acox, 595 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2010) (district courts have discretion to assess whether circumstances constitute good cause)
- United States v. Walden, 625 F.3d 961 (6th Cir. 2010) (district courts need freedom to manage dockets and schedules)