UNITED STATES of America
v.
Rayful EDMOND, III, et al., Defendants.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.https://leagle.com/images/logo.png
August 22, 1989.
August 22, 1989.
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Jay B. Stephens, U.S. Atty. by Betty Ann Soiefer, Robert G. Andary and Barry M. Tapp, Asst. U.S. Attys., for the U.S.
Cynthia W. Lobo, Washington, D.C., for defendant Melvin Butler.
Retna Pullings, Washington, D.C., for defendant Jeffrey Thompson.
Nina Kraut, Washington, D.C., for defendant Rayniece Edmond Thompson.
Idus Daniel, Washington, D.C., for defendant Katrina Wade.
Michelle A. Roberts, Washington, D.C., for defendant Patrick McDonald.
Thomas Slawson, Washington, D.C., for defendant Bernice Hillman-McGraw.
Robert Werdig, Washington, D.C., for defendant David McGraw.
Joseph Conte, Washington, D.C., for defendant Jerry Millington.
Leonard Long, Washington, D.C., for defendant John Monford.
Robert Sanders, Washington, D.C., for defendant Armaretta Perry.
W. Gary Kohlman, Washington, D.C., for defendant Constance Perry.
Sol Rosen, Washington, D.C., for defendant Melvin Stewart.
Diane Lepley, Washington, D.C., for defendant Emanuel Sutton.
Ernest W. McIntosh, Washington, D.C., for defendant Willie Childress.
Catherine Brown, Washington, D.C., for defendant Keith Cooper.
Arthur Levin, Washington, D.C., for defendant Columbus Daniels.
William Garber, Washington, D.C., for defendant Rachelle Edmond.
William Murphy, Baltimore, Md., for defendant Rayful Edmond, III.
Vincent Bowers, Washington, D.C., for defendant Ronald Green.
Joseph Virgilio, Washington, D.C., for defendant Robert Hardy.
Elise Haldane, Washington, D.C., for defendant James Antonio Jones.
Leroy Nesbitt, Washington, D.C., for defendant Tony Lewis.
John Drury, Drury and Brennan, Washington, D.C., for defendant Deatria Lindsay.
United States District Court, District of Columbia.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
CHARLES R. RICHEY, District Judge.
The defendants have moved to suppress various wiretap tapes. With this memorandum and order the Court considers two components of that motion: (1) the request to suppress all tapes of conversations obtained pursuant to judicial authorization under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(a)(ii)(A); and (2) the request to suppress all tapes recorded pursuant to the consent of a participant under 18 U.S.C. &...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting Sign on now to see your case. Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
Updated daily.
Uncompromising quality.
Complete, Accurate, Current.
Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full
text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.
Cited Cases
No Cases Found
Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the
full text of the citing case.