United States v. Parrish

• Decision Date: 04 March 2022
• Docket Number: CR420-124-17
• Parties: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOSEPH PARRISH, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Georgia

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JOSEPH PARRISH, Defendant.

No. CR420-124-17

United States District Court, S.D. Georgia, Savannah Division

March 4, 2022

ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

CHRISTOPHER L. RAY, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Defendant Joseph Parrish's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Show Cause (“Motion to Dismiss”) doc. 224, and his Supplemental Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Show Cause (“Supplement”), doc. 333. Parrish's Motion to Dismiss seeks dismissal of the indictment against him because of extrajudicial statements about this case made at a press conference and in a press release sponsored by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Georgia. Doc. 224 at 12. Parrish also requests that the Court order that individuals, including a former United States Attorney, who made statements at the press conference and in the press release to “appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned, or otherwise disciplined for violating this Court's Local Rules.” Id. at 13.

Parrish's Supplement argues that the Government did not timely oppose his Motion to Dismiss and asks the Court to grant the motion as unopposed. Doc. 333 at 2. The Government opposes both motions. See doc. 334 (noting the Government's opposition to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss and arguing that its opposition was timely); doc. 729 (Government's response to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss). For the following reasons, Parrish's request that the Court consider his Motion to Dismiss as unopposed is DENIED Doc. 333. To the extent Parrish's Motion to Dismiss requests that the Court order the individuals who made the extrajudicial statements to show cause, that request is DENIED. Doc. 224, in part. Additionally, it is RECOMMENDED that Parrish's request that the Court dismiss the Indictment against him be DENIED. Doc. 224, in part.

I. BACKGROUND

The Indictment in this case alleges that twenty-nine individuals, including Parrish, conspired to possess with intent to distribute and to distribute controlled substances in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. See doc. 3 (Indictment). Parrish is also charged with two counts of possession with intent to distribute marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c), and two counts of maintaining drug-involved premises in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 856(a)(1). Id.

The Government held a press conference and issued a press release regarding this case. See doc. 224 at 2 (Parrish references the press conference and press release); doc. 729-3 (Government's partial transcript of the press conference).^[1] The press release described the investigation of the indicted defendants, and included quotes from the former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Georgia. See doc. 852-4 (Press Release). The press conference featured speeches by the former U.S. Attorney and members of law enforcement from various agencies. See doc. 729-3. Parrish argues that five separate statements made by these individuals in the press release and during the press conference violate various provisions of this Court's Local Rules, regulations, and applicable Rules of Professional Conduct, and ultimately interfere with his right to a fair trial. See doc. 224 at 2 (Parrish identifies four statements which he argues were improper); doc. 761 at 10-11 (Parrish identifies an additional statement). The Court will address each of the five statements below. Parrish requests two forms of relief: (1) that the Court “dismiss this cause against him”; and (2) that the Court “issue an Order that [the attorney and FBI agent] appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned, or otherwise disciplined for violating this Court's Local Rules.” Doc. 224 at 13.

Thirty-five days after filing his Motion to Dismiss, Parrish filed his Supplement arguing that the Government did not oppose his motion within the time allotted by the Court's Scheduling Order, doc. 110. Doc. 333. The Government responded that it still had time to oppose Parrish's motion, and that it “absolutely opposes” the motion. Doc. 334. The Government later filed a response to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss, doc. 729, Parrish replied, doc. 761, and the Court held a hearing on the motion, doc. 852 (Minute Entry); doc. 921 (transcript).

II. ANALYSIS

First, the Court will discuss Parrish's request that his Motion to Dismiss be considered as unopposed. Doc. 333. Second, the Court will discuss whether Parrish is entitled to an order to show cause under the Local Rules. Doc. 224 at 13. Finally, the Court will address Parrish's argument that the indictment against him should be dismissed. Id.

A. The Court will consider the Government's opposition to Parrish's motion.

The Court's Scheduling Order gave Parrish 117 days from the date of his arraignment to file pretrial motions, and the Government “30 days to respond to any defense motion.” Doc. 110 at 1. Parrish timely filed his Motion to Dismiss, doc. 224; 35 days later, Parrish indicated that the Government had missed its deadline to oppose his motion and requested that the Court grant it as unopposed. Doc. 333 at 1. The Government contends that the Court's Scheduling Order affords it 30 days after Parrish's deadline to file pretrial motions to respond to any of Parrish's pretrial motions, and that its opposition to Parrish's motion was timely. Doc. 334 at 2.

The Court's practice is to set the deadline for the Government to respond to all defendants' pretrial motions for 30 days after all defendants' pretrial motions are due. Therefore, the Government's initial opposition to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss was timely. See doc. 110 (setting Parrish's deadline to file pretrial motions for 117 days after his arraignment on December 14, 2020, doc. 90, making the deadline April 10, 2022); doc. 334 (Government's initial opposition to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss filed February 11, 2021). Additionally, the Government's full Response to Parrish's Motion to Dismiss was timely, since Parrish had received multiple extensions of time to file pretrial motions, and the Government's response was filed within 30 days of Parrish's extended deadline. See doc. 412 (extending Parrish's pretrial motion deadline to June 10, 2021); doc. 565 (extending Parrish's pretrial motion deadline again to August 9, 2021); doc. 729 (Government's Response filed September 8, 2021). Accordingly, Parrish's request that the Court consider his motion to dismiss as unopposed is DENIED, doc. 333, and the Court will consider the Government's opposition to Parrish's motion.

B. Parrish may not initiate a disciplinary proceeding as a remedy in this criminal case.

Parrish requests that the Court issue an order that the individuals who made the extrajudicial statements “appear and show cause why they should not be sanctioned, or otherwise disciplined for violating this Court's Local Rules.” Doc. 224 at 13. Attorney discipline is governed by Local Civil Rule 83.5, which is applicable in the context of a criminal proceeding under Local Criminal Rule 1.1. S.D. Ga. L. Crim. R. 1.1 (“[The Local Civil Rules] must be consulted as to matters of procedure and administration not addressed by these [Local Criminal Rules]. See, e.g., . . . LR 83 (attorney admission, discipline, and relations with the jury).”). Under Local Civil Rule 83.5(a),

Any attorney who appears in a case or proceeding, or who represents a party in interest in a case or proceeding, may for good cause shown, and after notice and hearing, be disbarred, suspended from practice for a definite time, reprimanded, or subjected to such other discipline as the Court may deem proper.

S.D. Ga. L. R. 83.5(a). Disciplinary proceedings under Rule 83.5 are separate proceedings, distinct from any ongoing criminal case, including this prosecution. Parrish points to no rule or authority that would permit him, as a criminal defendant, to take advantage of the Court's own disciplinary rules to require an opposing attorney to appear and show cause. Accordingly, Parrish's request is DENIED. Doc. 224, in part.

C. Parrish may not obtain dismissal of the Indictment for pretrial publicity.

Parrish argues that the Court should dismiss the indictment against him because the extrajudicial statements violated four standards governing pretrial statements in criminal cases: (1) the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) Justice Manual, doc. 224 at 7-8 (citing Dep't of Just.

Atty's Manual §§ 1-7.500, 1-7.600, 1-7.610, 1-7.700); (2) the Code of Federal Regulations provision which codifies these Justice Manual standards, Id. at 8 (citing 28 C.F.R. § 50.2(b)(3)); (3) The Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, Id. at 9 (citing Ga. R. Prof. Cond. 3.6 & 3.8); and (4) The Local Criminal Rules of the Southern District of Georgia, Id. at 12 (citing S.D. Ga. L. Crim. R. 53.1). Additionally, Parrish argues that this case should be dismissed because the statements prejudiced his constitutional right to a fair trial. See Id. at 11-12; doc. 761 at 12-15.

1. Parrish cannot obtain dismissal under the Justice Manual, the C.F.R., the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, or the Local Rules.

Courts have definitively held that criminal defendants cannot obtain dismissal of an indictment for pretrial publicity in violation of the Justice Manual, the corresponding Federal Regulation, the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, or the Local Rules. First, the Justice Manual itself makes clear that it “provides internal guidance [for the DOJ] only and does not create any rights enforceable in law or otherwise.” Dep't of Just. Atty's Manual § 1-7.001; see also United States v. Grace, 401 F.Supp.2d 1057, 1062 (D. Mont. 2005) (§ 1-7.500 of the Justice...