3:25-cr-00054•USA v. Wyatt et al
Full text
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DEVONTE WYATT et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 3:25-cr-00054-1 Judge Thomas M. Rose ______________________________________________________________________________ ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR FRANKS HEARING ______________________________________________________________________________ On November 18, 2025, the Court held a hearing regarding Defendant Devonte Wyatt’s (“Defendant”) Motion for Franks Hearing. (See Doc. No. 35.) A condition precedent to conducting a Franks Hearing is that “the defendant make[] a substantial preliminary showing that a false statement knowingly and intentionally, or with reckless disregard for the truth, was included by the affiant in the warrant affidavit . . . .” Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 155–56 (1978); see United States v. Bryant, No. 20-CR-094, 2021 WL 671521, at *9 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 21, 2021) (“A defendant must make a substantial preliminary showing as a threshold matter to trigger a Franks hearing.”), aff’d, 2022 WL 1008837 (6th Cir. Apr. 4, 2022). A substantial preliminary showing of material omission may also serve as grounds to conduct a Franks Hearing. See United States v. Rose, 714 F.3d 362, 370 (6th Cir. 2013) (“A defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing if he . . . proves that the false statement or material omission is necessary to the probable cause finding in the affidavit.”). At the hearing, the Court orally denied Defendant’s Motion for Franks Hearing for failure to make a substantial preliminary showing. Accordingly, to memorialize the hearing held on November 18, 2025, the Court hereby Case: 3:25-cr-00054-TMR Doc #: 38 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 1 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2 DENIES Defendant’s Motion for Franks Hearing (Doc. No. 35.) DONE and ORDERED in Dayton, Ohio, this Thursday, November 20, 2025. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Case: 3:25-cr-00054-TMR Doc #: 38 Filed: 11/20/25 Page: 2 of 2 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.