Summary
finding that the officer's statements that he would make sure the charging attorney knew that the defendant was cooperative did not constitute a promise and the defendant's subjective “belief to the contrary [was] irrelevant.”
Summary of this case from United States v. PapeOpinion
Case No. 07-CR-0223 (PJS/JSM).
October 23, 2007
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron's September 25, 2007 Report and Recommendation ("R R"). Judge Mayeron recommends denying defendants' motions to suppress. Defendant Juan Manuel Estrada objects to Judge Mayeron's recommendations.
The Court has conducted a de novo review, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Crim.P. 59(b)(3). Based on that review, and on all of the files, records, and proceedings herein, the Court overrules Juan Manuel Estrada's objection and ADOPTS the R R [Docket No. 81]. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Defendant Eduardo Soto's Motion to Suppress Tangible Evidence and Statements [Docket No. 35] is DENIED.
2. Defendant Juan Manuel Estrada's Motion to Suppress Evidence [Docket No. 48] is DENIED.