Opinion
7:24-CR-35-WLS-TQL
12-19-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JACOB LASANE GARDNER, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SR. JUDGE
Previously, the Court provided the Parties with notice that this case was scheduled for a pretrial conference on Tuesday, January 7, 2025, at 3:00 p.m. and for trial during the Court's Valdosta Trial Term beginning February 3, 2025 (Doc. 21). In the event the case is not ready for trial, the Parties were ordered to file a motion to continue at least two days prior to the date of the noticed pretrial conference. (Id.) Defendant, filed a timely Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial in the Interest of Justice (Doc. 25) (“Motion”) requesting a continuance of the trial to the next term of court in the Valdosta Division because Defense Counsel needs additional time to review discovery, discuss the case with Defendant, and investigate potential defenses to the allegations in the Indictment. Defense Counsel represents that she conferred with Government's counsel, Assistant United States Attorney, Elicia Hargrove, who does not oppose the Motion. Defense Counsel further states that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the United States Attorney's Office in a speedy trial, and that the period of delay in holding the trial is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. § 3161. Defendant requests that a period of delay to the beginning of the next term be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. § 3161. As Defense Counsel is aware, the Court may schedule multiple criminal trials during a term of Court, and thus finds that the period of delay in continuing the trial through the conclusion of the next Valdosta trial term is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
To satisfy 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)-(B), the Court assumes Defense Counsel intended to state that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial, and the Court so finds based on the statements in the Motion.
Based on the Defendant's stated reasons, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)-(B). Therefore, the Motion (Doc. 25) is GRANTED.
The Court hereby ORDERS that the trial in the above-referenced matter be CONTINUED to the Valdosta Division May 2025 Trial Term and its conclusion, or as may otherwise be ordered by the Court. Furthermore, it is ORDERED that the time lost under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, is EXCLUDED pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) because the Court has continued the trial in this case and finds that the failure to grant a continuance (a) would likely result in a miscarriage of justice, and (b) would deny Defense Counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv).
The January 7, 2025 pretrial conference with respect to Defendant is CANCELLED.
SO ORDERED, this 19th day of December 2024.