IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
February 27, 2007
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CARRIE REID, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: David R. Herndon United States District Judge
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial Setting (Doc. 24). A jury trial for defendant Adams is currently set for March 19, 2007. Counsel for Defendant has a scheduling conflict, as he has a murder trial for another client, set to begin on March 5, 2007, which he anticipates will last for approximately two weeks (Id.). Counsel states that the instant case involves "voluminous discovery," that he has not yet been able to adequately review in order to properly prepare a defense. Further, counsel states that the Government does not object to a continuance.
Due to counsel's prior commitment, denying a continuance would effectively also deny Defendant continuity of counsel, if she were required to retain new counsel. Additionally, refusing further time for preparation, given the amount of discovery involved in this case would "deny counsel for the defendant . . . the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence" (as the Court finds no reason to assume Defendant's counsel has acted otherwise). These two reasons, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), can provide the Court with statutory justification for allowing the continuance and excluding the extension of time for purposes of speedy trial. Additional reasons supporting a continuance are the fact that the Government does not object -- currently, there is even a pending Motion to Designate Case a Multiple Victim Case Under the Justice for All Act of 2004 (Doc. 23), filed by the Government. Therefore, there are still pretrial/procedural aspects of the case which need to be resolved, indicating that this case is not yet ready to proceed to trial as currently set. Therefore, not granting a continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice for all parties (and possibly the alleged victims) involved. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(i).
The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's Motion to Continue. (Doc. 24.) The Court CONTINUES the jury trial scheduled for Monday, March 19, 2007 at 9:00 a.m., to Monday, September 10, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. The time from the date the original Motion to Continue (Doc. 24) was filed, February 22, 2007, until the date to which the trial is rescheduled, September 10, 2007, is excludable time for the purposes of speedy trial.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2007 VersusLaw Inc.