1 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT,

 Defendant. 

_________________________________/ 

ORDER SETTING EVIDENTIARY HEARING AND APPOINTING 

STAND-BY COUNSEL TO ASSIST AT HEARING 

On March 9, 2016, a jury found Defendant Curtis Scott guilty of aiding and 

abetting a carjacking, aiding and abetting the use and/or carrying of a firearm during 

a crime of violence, and making a false statement to a federal agent. Scott has now 

filed a motion for new trial pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal 

Procedure. (See ECF ## 144 and 162.) In the motion, Scott argues, among other 

things, that he is entitled to a new trial because his defense attorney, Leroy Soles, 

failed to provide effective assistance of counsel. 

The Court has reviewed Scott’s motion and has decided to hold an evidentiary 

hearing with respect to the following issues: 

1. The assertions in the affidavits of Monico Hayes and Paijah McClould 

(ECF ## 144-1 and 144-2) that Hayes and McCloud informed Soles 

that they could present certain exculpatory testimony and that Soles 
2 

unreasonably failed to elicit that testimony from them during their 

direct examination. The hearing will address whether Hayes and 

McCloud so informed Soles and, if they did so inform Soles, why Soles 

chose not to elicit the testimony. 

2. The assertion in Scott’s affidavit (ECF #144-3) that Soles failed to 

investigate and present evidence that Tynisha Jones had damaged a 

2005 Grand Marquis leased by her mother. The hearing will address 

whether Soles was told about this alleged evidence and, if he was, 

whether Soles investigated it and why he chose not to present it at trial. 

3. The assertion in Scott’s affidavit (ECF #144-3) that Soles failed to 

investigate and present evidence that Dexavior Evans had threatened 

Scott in phone calls that Evans made to Scott. The hearing will address 

whether Soles was told about this alleged evidence and, if he was, 

whether Soles investigated it and why he chose not to present it at trial. 

4. Scott’s assertion that Soles promised Scott that Soles would not impugn 

McCloud’s credibility or attack McCloud if Scott permitted Soles to 

remain as counsel. (See ECF #162 at Pg. ID 2753.) The hearing will 

address whether Soles made this alleged promise and, if he did, why he 

chose to suggest in his closing argument that McCloud may have been 

present at the time of the carjacking. 

Scott has insisted that he wishes to represent himself in connection with his 

pending motion, and the Court has honored that request. Nonetheless, the Court 

directs that stand-by counsel be appointed for the limited purpose of advising Scott 
3 

concerning the procedures followed at, and rules applied during, the evidentiary 

hearing. Counsel shall be present during the hearing to advise Scott on these matters. 

In addition, counsel shall assist Scott in serving subpoenas upon witnesses. 

At the hearing, the Government may present evidence addressing the issues 

identified above. The Government’s evidence may include, if the Government 

wishes, testimony from Mr. Soles concerning the issues listed above and any 

strategic considerations that he made in connection with those issues. Mr. Scott is, 

of course, also free to call Mr. Soles as a witness. 

The Court will set the date for the hearing once stand-by counsel has been 

appointed. At that point, the Court will consult with all counsel to find a convenient 

date and time for the hearing. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

Dated: June 16, 2017 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon the 

parties and/or counsel of record on June 16, 2017, by electronic means and/or 

ordinary mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (313) 234-5113