Opinion
CRIMINAL NO. 10-00190-KD.
January 11, 2011
ORDER
This matter came before the undersigned for a pretrial conference on January 10, 2011. Present at the conference were Gordon Armstrong, Esq., counsel for the defendant Nicole Sumerlin Faris, and Assistant United States Attorney Greg Bordenkircher. At the conference counsel for defendant made an oral motion to continue the trial to the April 2011 trial term, which was followed, at the request of the undersigned, with a written motion (doc. 26). The Government does not object to this motion.
Upon consideration of the grounds presented by counsel during the pretrial conference, as well as the written motion and the Court's record, the undersigned finds that neither the defendant nor the United States will be unduly prejudiced by a continuance into the April 2011 term; therefore, the defendant's motion to continue the trial for two months is GRANTED. The trial in this action is CONTINUED into the April 2011 criminal trial term. The court further finds that pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A), the ends of justice served by taking such action outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Specifically, defendant maintains there is outstanding discovery and counsel has filed a motion to produce specific documents (see doc. 21) which the United States has agreed to provide but additional time is needed to "ascertain the whereabouts and/or existence of said documents in order to provide them." (doc. 26 at p. 1) Under these circumstances, with an agreement of the parties, counsel has proffered valid reasons for an extension of the pretrial preparation period in order to otherwise prepare for trial. See 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Therefore, for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, any delay resulting from this continuance is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) (excluding A[a]ny period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge . . . if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.)
Counsel for defendant further states that he is slated to begin a nearly month long jury trial in this court (U.S. v. Blyth, et. al., CR-10-00011) which has been specially set for jury selection on January 24, 2011 with the trial to begin immediately thereafter.
The continuance of this matter is contingent on defendant filing a waiver of her Speedy Trial rights, signed by defendant and her counsel, not later than January 14, 2011 . The Clerk of the Court is directed to refer this matter to the appropriate Magistrate Judge to schedule a new pretrial conference in March 2011.
DONE this the 10th day of January 2011.