United States v. Hulse

Full title: UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL HULSE, SR., STEVEN P. MOCK, and FRANK J…

Court: DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

Date published: Dec 18, 2012

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 2:12-cr-104-MHT (M.D. Ala. Dec. 18, 2012)

Opinion

CRIMINAL ACTION NO 2:12-cr-104-MHT

12-18-2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PAUL HULSE, SR., STEVEN P. MOCK, and FRANK J. TEERS

Myron H. Thompson

(WO)

OPINION AND ORDER

This cause is before the court on defendants Paul Hulse, Sr., Steven P. Mock, and Frank J. Teers's unopposed oral motion to continue trial. For the reasons set forth below, the court finds that jury selection and trial, currently set for February 11, 2013, should be continued.

While the granting of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, United States v. Stitzer, 785 F.2d 1506, 1516 (11th Cir. 1986), the court is limited by the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Act provides in part:

"In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or
indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs."

18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The Act excludes from the 70-day period any continuance based on "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." § 3161(h)(7)(A). In granting such a continuance, the court shall consider, among other factors, whether the failure to grant the continuance would "result in a miscarriage of justice," § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), or "would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence." § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

The court concludes that, in this case, the ends of justice served by granting a continuance outweigh the interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Through counsel, the defendants represent that, due to the complexity of this case and the large amount of documents presented through discovery, defense counsel will be unable to mount effective defenses by the current trial date. Moreover, defendant Hulse has represented through counsel that the doctor retained by him to conduct a court-ordered psychological examination has been unable to do so because of delays in obtaining certain medical records. Lastly, the government does not oppose the motion.

***

Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:

(1) Defendants Paul Hulse, Sr., Steven P. Mock, and Frank J. Teers's oral motion for continuance, made in open court on December 17, 2012, is granted.

(2) The jury selection and trial, now set for February 11, 2013, are continued to May 20, 2013, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 2FMJ of the Frank M. Johnson Jr. United States Courthouse Complex, One Church Street, Montgomery, Alabama.

Myron H. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE