Opinion
7:23-CR-74 (WLS)
03-15-2024
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. JASON C. JOHNSON, Defendant.
ORDER
W. LOUIS SANDS, SR. JUDGE.
Before the Court is an Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial in the Interest of Justice (Doc. 31), (“Motion to Continue”) filed by the Defendant on March 14, 2024. Therein, Defendant requests the Court to continue the trial of this matter from the Valdosta Division May 2024 trial term to the next Valdosta term. Defense Counsel states the continuance is necessary for him to receive the subpoenaed records authorized by the Court, to review those documents, and discuss them with the Defendant. Defense Counsel represents that the Government does not oppose the continuance. Defendant, through counsel, further states that the above circumstances warrant finding excludable delay under the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, et seq., and that the ends of justice served by the granting the continuance “outweigh the best interests of the public and the United States Attorney's Office in a speedy trial.”
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. 31) is GRANTED.
The Court hereby ORDERS that the trial in the above-referenced matter be CONTINUED to the Valdosta Division August 2024 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).
SO ORDERED.