In assessing whether the Government has met its burden, the Court weighs the evidence presented in light of the four factors of section 3142(g): (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense charged, including whether the offense is a “crime of violence” or involves a firearm; (2) the weight of the evidence against the person; (3) the history and characteristics of the person, including his character, physical and mental condition, family, ties to community, criminal history, record of appearance at court proceedings, and whether he was on bond, probation, or parole at the time of the charged offense; and (4) the nature and seriousness of the danger to any person or the community that would be posed by the person's release. 18 U.S.C. § 3142(g); United States v. Wimbush, No. 19-134, 2021 WL 1811668, at *4 (D.N.J. May 6, 2021).
See, e.g., United States v. Wimbush, No. 19-134, 2021 WL 1811668, at *5-8 (D.N.J. May 6, 2021) (“The Court disagrees that the delay caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Standing Orders issued in response, have violated [d]efendant's rights under the U.S. Constitution[]”); United States v. Chu, No. 19-678, 2021 WL 879905, at *3-5 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2021) (“There is simply no basis for the Court to conclude that the Third Extension cannot properly exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act . . . .”).
To the contrary, courts nationwide have overwhelmingly upheld pandemic-related standing orders, which continue criminal jury trials to promote and ensure public health. See e.g. United States v. Wimbush, 2021 WL 1811668, at *6 n.3 (D.N.J. May 6, 2021) (collecting cases)
And several courts have concluded that similar standing orders validly toll the Speedy Trial clock. See, e.g., United States v. Wimbush, 2021 WL 1811668, at *6-7 (D.N.J. May 6, 2021); United States v. Kaetz, 2021 WL 1251711, at *2-3 (D.N.J. Apr. 5, 2021); United States v. Shaner, 2020 WL 6700954, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Nov. 13, 2020); United States v. Briggs, 2020 WL 3077171, at *2-3 (E.D. Pa. June 10, 2020). In the final analysis, the Court concludes that Defendant did not raise any new, material information in his Renewed Motion for Reconsideration that was not already considered by the Magistrate Judge.