Ninety-four overt acts in furtherance of the racketeering conspiracy were alleged, five of which were murders, and many others of which were serious crimes such as aggravated robbery and narcotics distribution.

Without belaboring the chronology, suffice it to say that from August 21, 2024 to the present, motions have continuously stopped the Speedy Trial Act clock.

However, Mr. Wright does not draw the Court’s attention to any way in which the passage of time, in and of itself, has prejudiced his defense, nor does he assert that the prosecution has manipulated the delay for tactical advantage.

As to the Barker v. Wingo factor of who is more responsible for the delay, the prosecution or the CASE 0:23-cr-00160-NEB-JFD Doc. 1631 Filed 01/09/25 Page 6 of 7 defense, Mr. Wright asserts the novel theory that because it charged a large case, the United States bears the blame for the delay, ignoring the reality that the prosecution’s charging decisions follow the facts developed during an investigation.

CASE 0:23-cr-00160-NEB-JFD Doc. 1631 Filed 01/09/25 Page 7 of 7 For all the foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant Ja’Darius Wright’s Motion for Reconsideration of Detention and Demand for Speedy Trial (Dkt. No. 1567) is DENIED.

Carpenter v. Lock, 257 F.3d 775, 779 (8th Cir. 2001) (citing Roviaro, 353 U.S. at 60–61); see also United States v. Lapsley, 263 F.3d 839, 841 (8th Cir. 2001) (“Where the disclosure of an informer’s identity, or of the contents of his communication, is relevant and helpful to the defense of an accused, or is essential to a fair determination of a cause, the privilege must give way.”).

The motion merely asserts that informants told law enforcement that Mr. Walker engaged in illegal activity, including the illicit drug transactions alleged as RICO predicate acts in the indictment.

However, beyond stating the time-saving rationale for early disclosure of Jencks Act materials, analyzed and found lacking above, Mr. Lockhart does not attempt to make a showing of particularized need.

With regard to cell phones, an individual “must first establish that he personally has a legitimate expectation of privacy in the object that was searched.” United States v. Stringer, 739 F.3d 391, 396 (8th Cir. 2014) (emphasis added).

Of final note, nothing in the Court’s findings or ruling should be read to prevent any defendant from filing a motion in limine addressing how the trial court should present the information in the indictment to the jury.

The Court notes that the bulk of Mr. Washington’s motions have been brought by other defendants and ruled upon by the Court already, which means that any prejudice from denying those motions as untimely is slight to nonexistent.

It is ordered that the defendant must notify the United States attorney for this district within 30 days of any change of name, residence, or mailing address until all fines, restitution, costs, and special assessments imposed by this judgment are fully paid.

☒ The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons:  That the defendant be designated to FMC Rochester for his healthcare needs and to be close to family.

as directed by the probation officer, the Bureau of Prisons, or any state sex offender registration agency in which you reside, work, are a student, or were convicted of a qualifying offense.

You must not own, possess, or have access to a firearm, ammunition, destructive device, or dangerous weapon (i.e., anything that was designed, or was modified for, the specific purpose of causing bodily injury or death to another person such as nunchakus or tasers).

** Justice for Victims of Trafficking Act of 2015, Pub. L. No. 114-22 *** Findings for the total amount of losses are required under Chapters 109A, 110, 110A, and 113A of Title 18 for offenses committed on or after September 13, 1994, but before April 23, 1996 CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD Doc. 324 Filed 11/18/24 Page 7 of 7 AO 245B (Rev.

The circumstances surrounding the two murders charged in the Indictment include, in each instance, an assault against a known rival gang member by one or more of the Defendants and uncharged associates inside an open business establishment.

“[T]he Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit the use of physical restraints visible to the jury absent a trial court determination, in the exercise of its discretion, that they are justified by a state interest specific to a particular trial.” Deck v. Missouri, 544 U.S. 622, 629 (2005).

The Darden court held that some combination of the following five factors is sufficient to establish a need for jury protection: 1) The defendant’s involvement in organized crime; CASE 0:23-cr-00156-SRN-TNL Doc. 366 Filed 10/08/24 Page 7 of 10 2) The defendant’s participation in a group with the capacity to harm jurors; 3) The defendant’s past attempts to interfere with the judicial process; 4) The potential that, if convicted, the defendant will suffer a lengthy incarceration and substantial monetary penalties, and; 5) Extensive publicity that could enhance the possibility that jurors’ names would become public and expose them to intimidation or harassment.

Any restriction that a court places on CASE 0:23-cr-00156-SRN-TNL Doc. 366 Filed 10/08/24 Page 8 of 10 public access to a trial must be no broader than necessary to protect the interests at stake, must be made after reasonable alternatives are considered, and must be supported by adequate findings of fact.

Each overflow room had a live stream of video and audio from the courtroom, with multiple CASE 0:23-cr-00156-SRN-TNL Doc. 366 Filed 10/08/24 Page 9 of 10 camera angles so that anyone observing was able to see the attorneys, the Defendants, the witness testifying, and the evidence being presented.

This duty is broad, extending to situations where avenues for retreat are limited but nonetheless available.

) Nonetheless, on September 21, 2024, well into the Government’s case-in-chief, the Government notified Defendants by email that it intended to seek a second-degree murder instruction as to Counts Two and Three.