~__ ".' ·:f· '. . _ 

·.r";~;:EILED UNDERSEAL .;,~" 'o!";;.;.~t-?'}..'t '.~~ "':' .,' ' -.:,,:. :'>',."" ",,'.;~~~" :':',:' :" '.: ... 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
 

SOUTHERN DIVISION
 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

CASE NO. 09-20025 

vs.	 HON. AVERN COHN 

D-4	 SAMUEL L. RIDDLE, JR., 

Defendant. 

rEDflrsrm if DEC 0 721J09	 iDJ __________---el	 U.S~~'fs~JS OFFICE 

EASTEANR~/CT COURT 

HIGAN 

PROTECTIVE ORDER 

By motion dated December 4,2009, the United States moved for a protective order 

precluding extrajudicial statements about this case by the parties or their attorneys. Having 

read the submissions ofthe parties and held oral argument on this matter, the Court makes 

the following findings of fact: 

1.	 There exists in this case a substantial likelihood that allowing extra-judicial statements 

by any ofthe parties to this litigation will prejudice the fair trial rights ofone or more 

ofthe parties and particularly prejudice they jury venire. 

a.	 From approximatelyMarch 2009 until the present, Mr. Riddle has used various 

forms ofmedia (print, radio, television, and internet) to advance his claim that 

he has been wrongfully and improperly selected for investigation and 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-MOB-MAR ECF No. 80, PageID.301 Filed 12/07/09 Page 1 of 3
prosecution, that the prosecutors in this case are politically motivated, and that 

the Court is being unfair to him. See Exhibit A attached. 

b.	 These extrajudicial statements create a substantial likelihood of material 

prejudice to the fair trial rights ofthe government, because those in the venire 

pool who have heard Mr. Riddle's comments might believe them and, 

therefore, refuse to credit evidence and argument submitted by the government 

at trial on the basis ofMr. Riddle's statements, which are inadmissible at trial. 

2.	 Other measures short ofthis protective order are insufficient to cure the prejudice that 

will result from continued extra-judicial comments. 

a.	 The sensitive and politically charged nature of Mr. Riddle's extrajudicial 

comments means that "[e]xtensive voir dire may not be able to filter out all of 

the effects of pretrial publicity." Gentile v. Nevada, 501 U.S. 1030, 1075 

(1991). 

b.	 Jury sequestration is also inadequate because it will allow Mr. Riddle's 

comments to continue unabated until there is an attempt to identify and remove 

the prejudice during voir dire, which may be insufficient. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, apart from court hearings or filings, 

no lawyer or party to this proceeding shall make any extrajudicial statement about this case 

which a reasonable person would believe could be publicly disseminated. This Protective 

Order, however, does not apply to statements that disseminate information regarding 

2
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-MOB-MAR ECF No. 80, PageID.302 Filed 12/07/09 Page 2 of 3
scheduling matters or other materials that are a part of the public record, so long as those 

statements are limited to bare facts as opposed to opinions, questions, or commentary. 

This Protective Order shall also apply to any person associated with the parties, 

including the parties' employees, agents, or representatives. 

DATED this rday of December, 2009. 

8 Q,IoL----- Gutv __ Avem Cohn 

United States District Judge 

3
 

Case 2:09-cr-20025-MOB-MAR ECF No. 80, PageID.303 Filed 12/07/09 Page 3 of 3