UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, Case No. 14-cr-20780 

 Hon. Matthew F. Leitman 

v. 

CURTIS SCOTT, 

 Defendant. 

__________________________________________________________________/

ORDER (1) EXTENDING BRIEFING DEADLINE DATES AND (2) 

DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO READDRESS (ECF #345) AND 

REQUESTS TO READDRESS (ECF ## 341, 342, 343, 346) 

 The Court held a continued evidentiary hearing on Defendant Curtis Scott’s 

motion for a new trial on March 12, 2018. At the end of the hearing, the Court asked 

Scott’s standby counsel to order the transcript of that hearing, mail it to Scott, and 

file a certificate of service with the Court. (See 3/12/2018 Tr. at 158:4-158:12, ECF 

#344 at Pg. ID 4166.) The Court then directed Scott to file his post-hearing brief in 

support of his motion for a new trial within 21 days after the transcript was mailed; 

the Court directed the Government to file a response within 21 days after Scott filed 

his response. (See id. at 158:13-158:15, 160:24-161:3, Pg. ID 4166, 4168-69.) 

Scott’s standby counsel has filed a certificate of service in which he certifies 

that he served a copy of the March 12, 2018 evidentiary hearing transcript by mail 

on Scott on March 28, 2018. (See ECF #347.) Scott’s standby counsel has also sent 
an email to the Court passing along a request by Scott for two additional weeks to 

prepare and file his brief. Standby counsel reports that the Government does not 

oppose the requested extension. 

 Scott’s request for an extension is GRANTED. Scott shall file his posthearing brief in support of his motion for a new trial by not later than May 2, 2018. 

The Government shall file any response by not later than June 6, 2018. 

 Scott has also filed a motion and various letters requesting that the Court 

reconvene the evidentiary hearing so that he may readdress the Court. (See Mot. to 

Address, ECF #345; Letters, ECF ## 341, 342, 343, 346.) Scott argues that the Court 

should resume the hearing because he did not have his prescribed medication on the 

day of the hearing, and the lack of medication interfered with his mental ability to 

think clearly at the hearing. 

The Court DENIES Scott’s motion and requests to reconvene the evidentiary 

hearing. During the hearing, the Court specifically confirmed with Scott that he was

able to proceed despite the absence of his medication: 

THE COURT: Mr. Scott, I understand that the last time 

we were scheduled to be here, you had a health concern. 

Are you feeling better? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah, a little bit. 

THE COURT: Were you able -- are you able to proceed 

this morning? 
THE DEFENDANT: Yes. I just need my medication. 

THE COURT: What medication? 

THE DEFENDANT: The lisinopril and keflex. 

THE COURT: Are you able to proceed -- I don't have 

medication with me right now. Are you able to proceed 

without that medication? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yeah. 

THE COURT: Yes? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes. 

THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. Okay. Please be seated. 

*** 

MS. BROWN: Your Honor? 

THE COURT: Yes. 

MS. BROWN: May I ask, I wonder if it's prudent to find 

out what type of medication it is that Mr. Scott does not 

have. I don't -- I'm not familiar with medication he listed, 

but I think the type of medication that he's proceeding 

without might be relevant. 
THE COURT: Good question. I think one of them is a 

blood pressure medication because I think somebody in 

my family is on it, but Mr. Scott, can you clarify for us: Is 

Lisinopril a blood pressure medication? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes, it's a -- I think it's a generic 

version. Yeah, it's blood pressure medication. 

THE COURT: And what was the other medication you 

mentioned? 

THE DEFENDANT: The other one is an anti seizure 

medication. 

THE COURT: All right. Now, the point that I think Ms. 

Brown was driving at, and it's a fair one, is we don't want 

to proceed this morning and then have you later suggest 

that because you didn't have your medication, you 

weren't able to function as your attorney or concentrate 

or proceed. All of us want to move forward with this 

hearing, including you, but I only want to do so if you 

are physically and mentally able to proceed this morning. 

Are you? 

THE DEFENDANT: Yes.

(3/12/2018 Tr. at 3:17-4:8, 5:5-6:6, ECF #344 at Pg. ID 4011-14; emphasis added.) 

 As shown above, the Court went to great lengths to ensure that Scott was 

capable of going forward with the continued evidentiary hearing. In fact, the Court 

sought to avoid and prevent the very situation now presented by Scott’s motion and 

requests – i.e., a post-hoc claim of incapacity by Scott. The Court will not grant 
Scott a “do-over” based upon his after-the-fact assessment that the hearing did not 

go as well as he had hoped it would. Accordingly, Scott’s motion to readdress (ECF 

#345) is DENIED. Furthermore, to the extent Scott requests a continued 

evidentiary hearing in his various letters (ECF ## 341, 342, 343, 346), those requests 

are also DENIED. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

/s/Matthew F. Leitman 

 MATTHEW F. LEITMAN 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Dated: April 2, 2018 

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

and/or counsel of record on April 2, 2018, by electronic means and/or ordinary 

mail. 

 s/Holly A. Monda 

 Case Manager 

 (810) 341-9764