Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01291/USCOURTS-ca10-15-01291-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Austin Ray
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

v. 

AUSTIN RAY, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

No. 15-1291 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CR-00147-MSK-2) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER

_________________________________ 

Before BRISCOE, Chief Judge, HARTZ and HOLMES, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

This matter is before the court on the defendant’s response to this court’s order of 

August 20, 2015. Upon consideration thereof, we conclude that this court lacks 

jurisdiction over this appeal. 

The defendant filed this interlocutory appeal from an order of the district court 

denying his motion for funds to retain an investigator, a translator and an expert witness. 

Generally, the final judgment rule prohibits appellate review in a criminal case 

until after conviction and imposition of sentence. Flanagan v. United States, 465 U.S. 

259, 263 (1984). 

[T]he Supreme Court has instructed that courts should use the [collateral 

order] exception to the finality requirement sparingly in the criminal 

context. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals 

Tenth Circuit 

September 24, 2015

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 15-1291 Document: 01019496381 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 1 
2 

Because of the compelling interest in prompt trial, the Court has interpreted 

the requirements of the collateral order exception to the final judgment rule 

with the utmost strictness in criminal cases. Indeed, the Supreme Court has 

applied the collateral order exception in only three categories of criminal 

cases: 1) motions to reduce bail; 2) motions to dismiss based on double 

jeopardy grounds; and 3) motions to assert immunity under the Speech or 

Debate Clause of the Constitution. 

United States v. Tucker, 745 F.3d 1054, 1063 (10th Cir. (internal quotes and citations 

omitted). This court has applied the collateral order exception in a few additional 

situations where the “asserted right cannot be vindicated after trial.” Id. at 1064. 

Thus, the collateral order doctrine has only been applied in criminal appeals where 

either the right not to be tried is implicated or the asserted right cannot be vindicated after 

trial. Id. 1063-64. Neither is present here. 

The cases cited by the defendant do not support his argument that this court has 

jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. In fact, in one of those cases, United 

States v. Gilmore, 282 F.3d 398 (6th Cir. 2002), the court reviewed the issue of whether 

the district court erred in denying a motion for an investigator and an expert after entry of 

final judgment. 

Accordingly, this court lacks jurisdiction and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

Entered for the Court 

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk 

by: Ellen Rich Reiter 

 Jurisdictional Attorney 

Appellate Case: 15-1291 Document: 01019496381 Date Filed: 09/24/2015 Page: 2