IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant. 

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

CAUSE NO.: EP-20-CR-00389-DCG

PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER 

The United States, by and through the undersigned attorneys, propose the following 

schedule to be adopted by this Court:1

January 18, 2022: Completion of non-expert Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 discovery for all parties; the 

United States shall make available to the Defendant by the time required 

by the applicable law all material for which disclosure is mandated by 

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)2

February 1, 2022: Defense discovery motions

February 15, 2022: Responses to defense discovery motions

April 1, 2022: 1) Constitutional motions relating to capital punishment, including but not 

limited to challenges to the Federal Death Penalty Act, the death penalty, 

per se, and Special Findings in the Superseding Indictment

2) Motion(s) to Dismiss/Strike the Superseding Indictment and/or Special

Findings, including motions attacking the sufficiency of notice and/or 

validity of aggravating factors

3) Challenges to Death Qualification

4) Government request for alibi disclosures

1 This proposed scheduling order is offered under the Court’s guidance that the parties, for purposes of developing a 

timeline for resolving this case, operate under an assumption that there will be a Death Qualification and trial. The 

Government has not yet qualified this matter as a Death Penalty case and no inference should be made from this 

filing as to whether when, or even if, such a qualification may be made. 2 This deadline is subject to the parties’ continuing discovery obligations.

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 6
5) Defense to provide reciprocal discovery pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 

16(b)(1) 

April 29, 2022: Government responses to capital motions 

May 13, 2022: Replies re: capital motions

May 23-27, 2022: Hearing re: capital motions, if necessary

June 13, 2022: 1) Pretrial motions, including but not limited to:

• Bill of particulars

• Venue 

• Defects in Instituting Prosecution

• Selective Prosecution

• Challenges to Grand Jury 

• Motions to Suppress 

2) Government’s proposed jury selection procedures 

June 27, 2022: Responses to pretrial motions and government’s proposed jury selection 

procedures 

July 11, 2022: Replies re: pretrial motions and government’s proposed jury selection 

procedures 

July 18-22, 2022: Hearings on pretrial motions and jury selection procedures, if necessary3

Sept. 6, 2022: 1) Defense notice of intent to introduce expert evidence on a mental 

condition bearing on the issue of guilt or punishment pursuant to Fed. R. 

Crim. P. 12.2(b)(1) and (2)4

• Defendant’s notice shall include the name and professional 

qualifications of any mental health professional who will testify as 

an expert and a brief, general summary of the topics to be 

addressed that is sufficient to permit the government to determine 

the area in which its expert must be versed. 

• If Defendant provides such notice, Defendant shall be examined by 

a corresponding mental health professional or professionals 

3 The Court will subsequently issue an order that will govern jury selection, including but not limited to dates and 

methods for prospective jurors to complete questionnaires, the parties to review questionnaires and propose strikes, 

in-court voir dire, and execution of peremptory strikes. 4 Unless either party subsequently requests alternative procedures, maintenance and disclosure of all results and 

reports of mental health examinations conducted pursuant to Rule 12.2 shall be governed by Rule 12.2(c). 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 6
selected by the government for purposes of rebuttal pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 12.2(c)(1). 

2) Government and defense disclosures of guilt-phase non-mental health 

expert summaries pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) and (b)(1)(C)

3) Deadline for defendant to raise claims under Atkins v. Virginia, 536 

U.S. 304 (2002). If notice is provided, a separate litigation schedule will 

be developed.

4) Deadline for the defendant to raise issues of competency. In the event 

that no motion is filed, the defense shall file an ex parte declaration under 

seal explaining why. If the defendant files a motion, a separate litigation 

schedule will be developed.

Sept. 27, 2022: 1) Disclosure of expert reports for experts identified in response to the 

parties’ Sept. 6, 2022 disclosures.

2) Challenges to any Sept. 6, 2022 expert disclosures

October 11, 2022: Responses to challenges to guilt phase non-mental health experts.

October 18, 2022: Disclosure of penalty phase non-mental health expert reports pursuant to 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(G) and (b)(1)(C). 

October 28, 2022: The parties are directed to confer on the matter of a jury questionnaire and 

to submit by this date a joint proposed questionnaire, if possible, as well as 

separate proposals regarding any areas in dispute.

November 1, 2022: 1) Disclosure of expert reports for experts identified in response to the 

parties” October 18, 2022 disclosure of penalty phase non-mental health 

expert reports

2) Challenges to Oct. 28, 2022 expert disclosures, if any. 

Nov. 14, 2022: Responses to challenges to penalty phase non-mental health experts

Nov. 16-18, 2022: Hearings re: jury questionnaire and challenges to experts, if necessary

January 15, 2023: 1) The parties are directed to confer on the matter of jury instructions and 

verdict forms for all phases of the trial and to submit by this date a joint 

proposal regarding any areas of common agreement and separate 

proposals regarding any areas in dispute.

2) Motions in limine regarding both the guilt and sentencing phases of 

trial 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 3 of 6
3) Government guilt and sentencing phase witness and exhibit lists 

January 30, 2023: 1) Responses to jury instruction proposals in dispute 

2) Responses to motions in limine 

3) Defense guilt phase witness and exhibit list 

February 6, 2023: Defense witness list and list of proposed mitigating factors

February 20-24: 1) Hearing on jury instructions and verdict form, motions in limine, and 

any disputes regarding witness lists

2) Completion of jury questionnaires 

March 6, 2023: Commence voir dire; trial to commence immediately after the conclusion 

of the jury selection process. 

. 

 Respectfully submitted, 

 ASHLEY C. HOFF 

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

 

By: _________________________ 

 IAN MARTINEZ HANNA

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

 Texas Bar #24057885 

 700 E. San Antonio, Suite 200 

El Paso, Texas 79901 

(915) 534-6884 

GREGORY E. McDONALD

 Assistant U.S. Attorney 

Texas Bar #13547300 

 700 E. San Antonio, Suite 200 

 El Paso, Texas 79901 

 (915) 534-6884 

MICHAEL S. WARBEL

Trial Attorney, US DOJ Criminal Division

Ohio Bar Number # 0074369 

950 Constitution Ave. NW 

Washington, DC 20530 

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 4 of 6
KYLE BOYNTON

Trial Attorney

Civil Rights Division

VA Bar Number: 92123 

150 M St. NE 

Washington, DC 20530 

(202) 598-0449 

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on this 14th day of January, 2022, a copy of the forgoing instrument 

was electronically filed with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF System which will transmit 

notification of such filing to counsel of record. 

 

Ian M. Hanna 

Assistant United States Attorney

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 5 of 6
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

PATRICK WOOD CRUSIUS,

Defendant. 

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

'

CAUSE NO.: EP-20-CR-00389-DCG

ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER 

On this date came to be considered the United States= Proposed Scheduling Order in the 

above captioned case.

After considering the United States= Proposal and the status of this case, the Court is of the 

opinion that the Proposed order should be Adopted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s Proposed Scheduling Order be 

Adopted as the Scheduling Order in this case.

SIGNED this __________ day of _______________________, 2022.

____________________________________

HONORABLE DAVID C. GUADERRAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:20-cr-00389-DCG Document 220 Filed 01/14/22 Page 6 of 6