Opinion
Case No. 2:03CR 00999BSJ.
February 11, 2005
PAUL M. WARNER, United States Attorney (#3389), STANLEY H. OLSEN, Assistant United States Attorney (#2466), GREGORY C DIAMOND, Assistant United States Attorney (#0878), Salt Lake City, Utah, Attorneys for the United States of America.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND ORDER
On January 27, 2005, this matter came on for hearing pursuant to a series of motions filed by the defendant. The ruling regarding those motions are the subject of a separate Order. During the hearing the defendant was present and represented by counsel, Joseph H. Thibodeau and John F. Sullivan. The United States was represented by Assistant United States Attorneys Stanley H. Olsen and Gregory C Diamond. Having heard the representations of the parties and being familiar with the file herein, the Court makes and enters the following:
Findings of Fact
1. On December 15, 2004, the defendant filed eleven pretrial motions covering various topics.
2. On January 20, 2005, the defendant served a subpoena to the State of Utah, covering four state agencies and requesting a substantial quantity of documents and records.
3. The State of Utah filed a motion to quash the defendant's subpoena. A representative of the Attorney General's Office for the State of Utah appeared at the hearing on January 27, 2005. The defendant and counsel for the Utah Attorney General's Office represented that they believed that they could come to an agreement regarding those records that were the subject of the subpoena. This agreement consisted of provision, by the defendant, of a specific list of documents required and thereby a limitation on the efforts of the state to search and produce the records in question. This agreement would require substantial additional time to complete, however.
4. Based upon this Court's ruling on the motions filed by the defendant the parties will require additional time to prepare for the trial in this matter. The defendant specifically waived any right he may have to proceed under the time limitations of Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., commonly known as the Speedy Trial Act. See also Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F).
The ends of justice are best served by vacating the present trial date of February 22, 2005, and continuing this matter. Justice so served outweighs the best interests of the parties and the public in a speedy trial.
The failure to vacate and reset the trial date would deny to the parties the reasonable time required to obtain documents and prepare for trial, taking into account the exercise of due diligence by the parties and by the State of Utah.
It is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation, or trial itself, within the time limitations as presently set or those established by the Speedy Trial Act. See Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) and (B).
Based upon the foregoing Findings of Fact, the Court now enters the following ORDER:
1. The trial date of February 22, 2005, is vacated and reset for April 18, 2005, at 9:30 a.m.
2. All time from December 15, 2004, the filing of defendant's motions up through and including April 18, 2005, is excludeable and is hereby excluded from any calculation required by Title 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., commonly known as the Speedy Trial Act.