A picture of Genco in Fort Benning, Georgia undergoing U.S. Army Basic Training
Background
Genco faces one charge of an attempted hate crime involving an attempt to kill, punishable by up to life imprisonment, and one count of illegal possession of a machinegun, punishable by up to ten years' imprisonment.
For more information, view previous thread:
Tres Genco update: federal jury trial scheduled for Ohiocel who allegedly planned to kill sorority Stacies
Latest developments
Yesterday, Genco's legal team filed the following four motions in federal court. I have attached the full text motions.
1. Motion to suppress evidence from warrantless search
As part of a heated domestic incident with his mother, Genco granted verbal consent to HCSO (Highland County Sheriff's Office) deputies to look for a handgun. During the search, HCSO deputies rummaged through his belongings, found and read a set of handwritten papers that allegedly contained Genco's plans to commit a mass shooting at Ohio State University.
Genco's lawyers argue that the search of those papers were beyond the scope of the warrantless search that Genco consented to, violated his Fourth Amendment rights, and therefore should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.
2. Motion to suppress evidence seized from search warrant
HCSO deputies used the handwritten papers from the warrantless search to obtain a search warrant from state court, arguing that there was probable cause that Genco made "terroristic threats", a violation of Ohio law. (Note: Genco was subsequently convicted on this aforementioned state charge, though what is admissible in state court does not necessarily comport with what is admissible in federal court)
Genco's lawyers argue that there was no probable cause that Genco had made "terroristic threats". Under Ohio law, such a threat must be communicated to a target, and since Genco's writings were kept in the privacy of his bedroom, probable cause does not exist. They also argue that Genco's writings, since they were not communicated to anyone, were protected by the First Amendment and the right to privacy. In addition, HCSO deputies did not specify an address on the face of the search warrant. Under Groh v. Ramirez (2004), a warrant that does not adequately describe the persons or things to be seized is invalid under the Fourth Amendment.
Therefore, Genco's lawyers argue, the evidence from the warrant should be suppressed under the exclusionary rule.
3. Motion for bill of particulars and to extend motion deadline
A bill of particulars is essentially a request for the prosecution to elaborate.
Federal prosecutors allege that a series of Genco's acts—joining the U.S. Army, posting on incel forums, buying weapons and ammunition, writing—were all part of a broad, "continuing attempt" to kill women. Genco's lawyers argue that there is no evidence that Genco actually attempted to kill any person, and therefore want further detail on the nature of the prosecution's argument, so they can better rebut it at trial.
4. Motion to dismiss Count 2 of the Indictment
Genco is being charged with illegal possession of a machinegun, specifically a Glock handgun with its serial number and manufacturer's markings removed. I was initially under the impression, based on my reading of the complaint and the indictment, that the handgun was illegally modified to fire fully automatically.
However, Genco's legal team says that the Glock handgun was not modified in such a manner, and fires semi-automatically. Therefore, it does not constitute a "machinegun" under federal law.
Genco's lawyers also argue that the Commerce Clause of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution does not give the federal government authority to regulate the private possession of machine guns under the, and are raising this argument at this stage of the proceedings merely to preserve it for potential review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit or even the U.S. Supreme Court.
Commentary
Under Judge Susan J. Dlott's scheduling orders, Assistant U.S. Attorney Megan Gaffney Painter and her co-counsel will have to file their rebuttals within the next week. I will reply to this thread with an update when that happens.
I expect the prosecutors to argue against the motions to suppress evidence from the warrantless search under the plain view doctrine, and against the motion to suppress evidence from the search warrant under the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule, but there's no saying what tricks they're going to pull up their sleeves.
I expect and hope that Judge Dlott grants the third motion. A bill of particulars would not only bolster Genco's defense, but would also allow the public to better understand Genco's activities on and off incel forums and the strength of the government's evidence. Also, if the bill does not sufficiently establish probable cause that Genco committed an attempted hate crime, his lawyers could file a motion to dismiss.
Regarding the fourth motion, if the Glock is indeed semi-auto, then that's just plain incompetence on the part of the prosecutor, if it does not fire continuously with a single trigger pull, then it is not a "machinegun".
It is also worth noting that in addition to the pistol, Genco was also caught with an AR-15 with an illegal bump stock, but was not charged for it. My educated guess as to why prosecutors declined to add a second "machinegun possession" charge is that there is a high-profile lawsuit pending an en banc rehearing in the conservative-dominated Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Gun Owners of America v. Garland, that calls into question the constitutionality of the federal regulation banning bump stocks. The Sixth Circuit has appellate jurisdiction over federal district courts in Ohio (and Kentucky, Michigan, and Tennessee).
@kanyepilled @ineedassistance @Languishingrn @BummerDrummer @-BrettyBoy- @Uglychincel @mNFwTJ3wz9 @BlkPillPres @dreadtheblackpill @Master @AutisticMonstrosity @Mecoja @FlyFace @MabundaG @PoodankMcGee @Mogged Loner @Azaylias @keksofthebest @solblue @Escthectrler @Diocel @notafed @Robtical @Emba @gymletethnicel @erenyeager @ricecel_gone_er @Sportbro @Hell @Wellington @IncelCatechumen @your personality @Benj-amin @Idlevillagercel @Dregster666 @LDARbeforeROPE @unsettling @Lv99_BixNood @Transcended Trucel @incelerated @bigantennaemay1 @Kamikaze @metabuxx @sckicksal345 @Mentally lost cel @get_even @SelfCrucified @Sportbro @Gyros_Pretcel @Ritalincel @refmd @commander_zoidberg @rope2cope @Linesnap99 @l33tbl0k3 @Arthas93 @Copexodius Maximus
@FamilyGuy1999 @Lookscel @Dotrinfobe
I mentioned people who made a substantial comment (i.e. not merely a quote) on previous threads about this case. Tell me if you want to be added or removed from future case updates.
@FamilyGuy1999 @Lookscel @Dotrinfobe
I mentioned people who made a substantial comment (i.e. not merely a quote) on previous threads about this case. Tell me if you want to be added or removed from future case updates.
Last edited:
