Free Order - District Court of Connecticut - Connecticut

Case 3:02-cr-00264-AHN

Document 1449

Filed 02/08/2005

Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT -----------------------------UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. ) ) WALTER A. FORBES ) ------------------------------

Criminal No. 3:02CR00264(AWT)

ORDER RE DEFENDANT FORBES' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES TO TRANSFER THE RETRIAL OF WALTER FORBES TO THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY Defendant Forbes noted in his Memorandum of Defendant Walter A. Forbes in Opposition to Motion of the United States to Transfer Any Retrial to the District of New Jersey (Doc. No. 1440) that in the interest of expediting his response to the government's motion, the memorandum was being limited to threshold issues. The government quite properly notes that

"Forbes should not be given two self-appointed bites at the apple when he has every opportunity to respond to all of the Government's arguments in a [single] submission." (Reply Mem. (Doc. No. 1445) at 2, n.1) The court agrees.

Leave of court was required for the approach that defendant Forbes seeks to follow. it will not be. Leave of court has not been given, and

The court prefers that all the issues be briefed Then, if the court desires supplemental

in a single round.

briefing, it will request it.

1

Case 3:02-cr-00264-AHN

Document 1449

Filed 02/08/2005

Page 2 of 2

Accordingly, defendant Forbes shall by February 15, 2005 supplement his opposition memorandum to address the merits of the government's request. The government shall thereafter have the

standard period of time in which to file a supplemental reply memorandum. The court notes that, to date, neither party has addressed whether the fact that a superseding indictment was returned by a Grand Jury in the District of Connecticut is material to the court's analysis. this point. The supplemental submissions should address

As to the incremental costs to the government of

trying the case in Hartford, the court would like (i) a general breakdown (e.g., renting office space, equipment rental, housing, meal stipends, mileage, etc.) of the incremental costs to the United States Attorney's Office, and (ii) the incremental costs to the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the United States Postal Service, with a similar breakdown. It is so ordered. Dated this Connecticut. 8th day of February 2005, at Hartford,

/s/ Alvin W. Thompson United States District Judge

2