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. McCay

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


August 29, 2007

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CLARENCE CHARLES E. MCCAY, JR., 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 McCay, Jr. ("Defendant") (Doc. 44.) The motion is unopposed. Defendant recently completed residential drug treatment. Defendant's counsel is requesting more time in order to meet with Defendant and to continue ongoing discussions with the Government regarding a possible plea agreement. To require the Defendant to go to trial now before he has had adequate time to meet with counsel and explore a plea agreement would be unreasonable. In addition, 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 unreasonably interfere with the current plea negotiations, which if successful would serve all parties' interest in a just and efficient outcome. Clearly, to go forward now would visit a manifest miscarriage of justice upon all concerned. Furthermore, the Court finds pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) that since no motion to sever has been filed, the trial should be continued for the other co-defendants scheduled for trial that day, September 17, 2007: Dion Halaska, Anton J. Halaska, IV, and Marshal D. Rosenberger (collectively referred to herein as "Co-Defendants"). Furthermore, another Co-Defendant, Deanna L. McCay, has not yet been arraigned and, therefore, will be unavailable for trial on September 17, 2007. Lastly, Co-Defendant Dion Halaska has filed a motion to suppress (Doc. 41), which has not yet been fully briefed -- making it unlikely that the Court would be able to rule upon that motion prior to September 17, 2007. A single trial is favored to preserve the resources of the Court and to promote efficiencies. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant McCay Jr.'s motion to continue (Doc. 44) and continues the trial scheduled for September 17, 2007 for Defendant McCay, Jr. and Co-Defendants until December 10, 2007 at 9:00 a.m. The time from the date Defendant McCay's motion was raised, August 27, 2007, until the date on which the trial is rescheduled, December 10, 2007, is excludable time for the purposes of speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DavidRHerndon United States District Judge

20070829

© 1992-2007 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.