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 of America v. Charles Brown

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


January 3, 2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHARLES BROWN, DEFENDANT.

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

ORDER

Now before the Court is Defendant's motion to continue trial (Doc. 16). Defendant states that he needs additional time to hire retained counsel. Defendant maintains that he is in the process of obtaining retained counsel in that his family has paid a partial retainer to private counsel and needs additional time to pay the balance of the retainer. The Government does not object. The Court being fully advised in the premises finds that Brown needs additional time to hire and pay retained counsel. The Court finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(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. The Court also finds that to deny a continuance of the matter would result in a miscarriage of justice.

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant's December 29, 2010 motion to continue trial (Doc. 16). The Court CONTINUES the jury trial scheduled for January 18, 2011 to Monday, March 21, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. The time from the date the original motion was filed, December 29, 2010, until the date to which the trial is rescheduled, March 21, 2011, is excludable time for the purposes of speedy trial.

Further, in continuing this trial, the Court also notes that Defendant was previously given twenty-one (21) days from the date of his arraignment in which to file pre-trial motions and complete discovery. According to a recent Supreme Court decision, Bloate v. United States, 130 S.Ct 1345 (2010), delays resulting from pre-trial motion preparation is not automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1), but requires case-specific findings under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). In light of Bloate, the Court finds that the time granted to Defendant Brown for preparation of pretrial motions and discovery was also excludable under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) as the justice served by the granting of such a continuance outweighed the best interests of the public and Defendant in a speedy trial. To force a Defendant to trial without adequate time to prepare would have constituted a miscarriage of justice. Therefore, for purposes of the Order issued November 17, 2010, granting Defendant twenty-one (21) days in which to complete discovery and file pre-trial motions (Doc. 8), the Court notes that the time from the arraignment, November 17, 2010, until the date on which the twenty-one days expired, December 8, 2010, is excludable time for the purposes of 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.

David R. Herndon Chief Judge United States District Court

2011.01.03 12:33:58 -06'00'

20110103

© 1992-2011 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.