Willie J. Epps, Jr.
How Judge Jr. decides
Patterns drawn from this judge's own signed orders. Every observation links to the order it came from.
What persuades
On a Title III wiretap-suppression motion he holds the Government to the necessity requirement but applies it pragmatically under Eighth Circuit law: necessity is met where ordinary investigative techniques were tried with limited success or reasonably considered and found unsuited, not only where every technique was exhausted. To win suppression, attack the affidavit's necessity showing head-on rather than arguing the agents could have done more.
“the undersigned recommends that District Judge find Government’s use of ordinary investigation techniques did not foreclose its need for wiretaps.”
On 28 U.S.C. 1915 screening of a pro se complaint he applies Twombly/Iqbal plausibility strictly and enforces the bar on suing indeterminate fictitious defendants; a pleading naming unidentified, open-ended 'John Doe'-type parties will be recommended for dismissal for failure to state a claim. Identify real, countable defendants and plead specific facts.
“the facts alleged in Mr. Garrett’s Amended Complaint fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
Procedural preferences
His suppression Reports & Recommendations are routinely adopted by the assigned district judges after de novo review, with the defendant's objections overruled and the motion denied (e.g., Connor, Wong, and Platek all had Epps's R&R adopted in full and the suppression motion DENIED). The practical takeaway: his R&R is usually the decisive document, so litigate the issue fully before the magistrate, not for the first time in objections.
“the Court accepts the findings and recommendations made by Chief Magistrate Judge Willie J. Epps, Jr. in full. ... (3) Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence, (Doc. 63), is DENIED.”
He will not entertain a pro se motion filed by a defendant who is represented by competent counsel: there is no right to hybrid representation, and a defendant who wants to press an argument should do it through counsel or first move to substitute counsel.
“There is no constitutional or statutory right to simultaneously proceed pro se and with benefit of counsel.”
Cautions
He is reluctant to reopen a closed suppression record: a defendant who had the chance to develop an issue (e.g., cross-examine on a drug-dog's reliability) at the original hearing and waited months will be found to have forfeited it, and reopening that would prejudice the Government is disfavored. Raise every suppression theory the first time.
“Given the prolonged period of time and the nature of the proposed evidence, the Government would be prejudiced by reopening the record.”
Motion outcomes
Counted from classified signed orders only. Percentages are shown only where the sample is large enough to be meaningful; smaller samples are reported as raw counts.
| Motion to suppress N = 2 |
Denied: 2 | counts only |
| Motion for hearing N = 1 |
Moot / procedural: 1 | counts only |
| Motion to reopen suppression hearing N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
| Motion for leave to proceed ifp N = 1 |
Denied: 1 | counts only |
A "1 of 1" is one ruling, not a tendency. Treat small samples as illustrative, not predictive.
Signed rulings
A grounded sample of orders signed by this judge, with the verbatim dispositive language.
“the Court recommends denying the Motion to Suppress and denying as moot the Motion for Hearing.”
“the Court recommends denying the Motion to Suppress and denying as moot the Motion for Hearing.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the Court, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order DENYING Defendant William Austin Lee Crabtree’s Motion to Reopen Suppression Hearing as to Count One. (Doc. 56).”
“IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order DENYING Defendant Dejuan T. Parker’s Motion to Suppress Wiretaps.”
“IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the District Judge, after making an independent review of the record and applicable law, enter an order denying Mr. Garrett’s motion and dismissing this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B).”