Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Taylor

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS


December 5, 2006

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JOHNNIE L. TAYLOR, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, District Judge

ORDER

Before the Court is a motion to continue trial submitted by Defendant on November 9, 2006. (Doc. 19.) The motion is unopposed. On the same day that Defendant filed the motion to continue trial (Doc. 19), Defendant also filed a motion to suppress (Doc. 18). At the time, the Court found that the trial should be postponed, based on a number of factors. First, the Court found that more time was required in order for the government to respond to the motion to suppress (Doc. 18) and for the Court to thoroughly and sufficiently consider the issues raised in the motion to suppress. In addition, Defendant was awaiting discovery that may be salient to Defendant's case. Lastly, Defendant's counsel was still in the process of interviewing potential witnesses for this trial. At the time, trial in this matter was set for November 20, 2006. The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), the ends of justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweigh the interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial because failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel for Defendant the reasonable time necessary to adequately prepare for trial. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to continue (Doc. 19) and continues the trial scheduled for November 20, 2006 for Defendant until January 29, 2007. The time from the date Defendant's motion was raised, November 9, 2006, until the date on which the trial is rescheduled, January 29, 2007, is excludable time for the purposes of speedy trial. In addition, the Court finds, and both parties agree, that the motion to suppress (Doc. 18) is MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

David RHerndon United States District Judge

20061205

© 1992-2006 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.