U.S. v. Rozin

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Plaintiff v. LEIF D. ROZIN, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division

Date published: May 25, 2006

Case Number: CR-1-05-139 (S.D. Ohio May. 25, 2006)

Opinion

Case Number: CR-1-05-139.

May 25, 2006

ORDER

SUSAN DLOTT, District Judge

This matter comes before the Court following a status conference with counsel for the Government and all Defendants on May 10, 2006. The Court is aware that each Defendant has already requested an unlimited continuance and executed a waiver of his right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. (See docs. ## 19, 22, 26, 29, 32.) Magistrate Judge Hogan has also already entered orders pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) granting each Defendant a continuance based on his findings that: 1) given the nature of the case, Defendants need more time to adequately prepare for trial than allowed by the speedy trial requirements; and 2) each Defendant's interest in an adequate defense and the interests of justice outweigh the Defendants' and public's interest in a speedy trial. (See docs. ## 19, 22, 24, 26, 29, 32.)

The Court is satisfied that the Defendants' waivers and Magistrate Judge Hogan's orders satisfy the requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), which provides that a court may, upon making findings such as Judge Hogan did, above, grant a trial continuance that is excludable from the speedy trial calculation. Given the Court's and counsel's discussion at the scheduling conference, however, the Court makes the following supplementary findings. This case involves five defendants and is the product of five years of ongoing investigation. Counsel for Defendants have represented that the Government has produced thousands of documents in discovery and that it will take several more months of review before they can even determine how long they need to prepare for trial. As such, this Court finds that this case is so unusual or complex that "it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section." See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

This Court thus finds — and confirms Magistrate Judge Hogan's findings — that under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), the ends of justice are served by continuing the trial and that Defendants' right to effective representation and an adequate presentation of their defense outweighs the best interest of Defendants and the public in a speedy trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.