Opinion
7:24-CR-24-WLS-TQL-1
09-25-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. MARCUS DEWAYNE GRADY, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE.
Before the Court is the Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Continuance in the Interest of Justice (Doc. 32) (“Motion”). Therein, Defense Counsel requests a continuance of the trial from the November 2024 trial term to the next Valdosta trial term. Through discovery review with Defendant, Defense Counsel determined that additional records are needed and Defense Counsel is still in the process of receiving requested records, from various courts. The continuance is necessary to allow Defense Counsel to obtain and review the additional records.
Defendant 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 continuing the trial to the beginning of the next term be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
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. The Court directs Defense Counsel note the correction for future motions to continue.
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.
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. 32) is GRANTED as follows:
The Court hereby ORDERS that the trial in the above-referenced matter be CONTINUED to the Valdosta Division February 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).
It is further ORDERED, that in the event the Defendant objects to the exclusion of the period of delay through the conclusion of the Valdosta Division February 2025 trial term, that he immediately advise the Court of such objection in writing.
SO ORDERED.