US v. Dickerson

2001 DNH 037
CourtDistrict Court, D. New Hampshire
DecidedFebruary 16, 2001
DocketCR-99-006-M
StatusPublished

This text of 2001 DNH 037 (US v. Dickerson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. New Hampshire primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
US v. Dickerson, 2001 DNH 037 (D.N.H. 2001).

Opinion

US v . Dickerson CR-99-006-M 02/16/01 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America, Plaintiff

v. Criminal N o . 99-06-01-M Opinion N o . 2001 DNH 037 Tyrone Dickerson, Defendant

O R D E R

The representation provided by Attorney Tucker was extended

and the case complex in that defendant insisted on withdrawing

his guilty plea prior to sentencing, requiring Attorney Tucker to

litigate that matter (successfully), including an evidentiary

hearing. A jury trial followed which resulted in a mistrial

through no fault of defendant or Attorney Tucker, and another

jury trial was required. In addition, due to serious problems

identified in the Hillsborough County Jail, federal detainees

have necessarily been housed as far away as Portland, Maine (as

was this defendant for a time), thus imposing unusual travel

obligations on counsel such as M r . Tucker. Although in the end

the result for defendant was (perhaps predictably) not favorable, Attorney Tucker nevertheless provided zealous and very capable

representation, and provided it in an efficient and effective

manner.

All of which militates in favor of approving and certifying

fees in excess of the limits imposed by the Criminal Justice Act,

18 U.S.C. § 3006A. Having considered the exemplary legal

representation provided by counsel, the undoubted imposition on

his private litigation practice, the extended and complex nature

of this representation, and the required second jury trial

through no fault of counsel, I find that excess fees in the

amount requested should be and hereby are approved and certified

to the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals as reasonable and

necessary to provide fair compensation under the Act in this

case.

The Motion for Compensation in Excess of Statutory Maximum

(document n o . 86) i s , therefore, granted.

SO ORDERED.

Steven J. McAuliffe United States District Judge February 1 6 , 2001 cc: Brian T . Tucker, Esq.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2001 DNH 037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/us-v-dickerson-nhd-2001.