IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
January 14, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
MARKEITH REYNOLDS, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Herndon, Chief Judge
Before the Court is a motion to continue trial submitted by Defendant Markeith Reynolds (Doc. 37). Defendant argues that his counsel is involved in several other trials in other cases throughout the months of January and February. Further, Defendant argues that he expects to receive additional discovery this week which will require further trial preparation and argues that a protective order issued in this case complicates matters as his counsel must meet personally with Defendant to discuss each piece of discovery material. Defendant also argues that a forensic software analyst has been retained to review recording device software used by the Government, but Defendant has not yet been able to arrange for a date, time, and place which the analyst can conduct his review and, therefore, requires additional time to prepare for trial. To force the Defendant to trial without adequate time to prepare would constitute a miscarriage of justice. 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 Reynolds in a speedy trial. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant Reynolds's motion to continue trial (Doc. 37) and CONTINUES the jury trial scheduled for January 20, 2009 until March 30, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. The time from the date Defendant's motion was filed, January 12, 2009, until the date on which the trial is rescheduled, March 30, 2009, is excludable for purposes of a speedy trial.
Should either party believe that a witness will be required to travel on the Justice Prisoner and Alien Transportation System (JPATS) in order to testify at the trial of this case, a writ should be requested at least two months in advance.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DavidRHer|do| Chief Judge United States District Court
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.