The grand jury returned a fourteen-count indictment charging Lisa and Robert Hofschulz with distributing controlled substances outside a professional medical practice without a legitimate medical purpose. Dkt. No. 1. Some eight months later, it returned a superseding indictment that added a death-resulting charge against only Lisa Hofschulz. Dkt. No. 29.
Lisa Hofschulz filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that law enforcement had failed to preserve certain evidence it knew to be exculpatory. Dkt. No. 34. Magistrate Judge William E. Duffin issued a report and recommendation that this court deny the motion to suppress, dkt. no. 37, to which the defendant timely objected, dkt. no. 42. The court will overrule the objections, adopt Judge Duffin's report and recommendations and deny the motion.
Judge - Duffin - Recitation - Facts - Police
Judge Duffin crafted his recitation of the facts from the police and medical examiner reports that the defendant submitted with her motion to suppress. Dkt. No. 37 at 2-3 (citing Dkt. Nos. 34-1, 34-2, 34-3). The defendant has not objected to Judge Duffin's recitation of the facts. Rather, her objection states that "[i]n lieu of a detailed factual background," she is incorporating and adopting the facts and arguments she'd stated in the motion to suppress. Dkt. No. 42 at 7. Oddly, she then went on to articulate a detailed factual background. Id. at 7-9. Because this court only reviews those portions of a magistrate judge's report and recommendation to which a party specifically objects (see Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 59), the court will work from Judge Duffin's facts. He wrote:
Dkt. No. 37 at 2-3.
Judge - Duffin - Defendant - Suppression - Toxicology
Judge Duffin observed that the defendant sought suppression of the toxicology report, the autopsy report and any evidence pertaining to the cause of F.E.'s death. Id. at 3-4. The motion hinged on the defendant's contention that law enforcement had failed to preserve bottles of alcohol, pill...
Wake Up To Breaking News!