Opinion
CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 5:15-cr-80-KKC
11-25-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SAMUEL ERIC POORE, and THOMAS R. MASON, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
*** *** ***
This matter is before the Court on Defendants Thomas Mason and Samuel Poore's motions to continue their trials now scheduled for December 7, 2015. (DE 22-23). As grounds for their motions, Defendants state that a continuance: (1) would improve the chances of reaching plea agreements, (2) would give the Defendants time to review discovery, (3) and are agreed to by the Assistant United States Attorney (AUSA). The Court finds that the offered grounds are insufficient to establish that the ends of justice would be served by granting the continuance. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Failure to grant a continuance can work a miscarriage of justice if it forces a Defendant to forgo plea negotiations, and eliminates the possibility of receiving a reduced charge. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i). However, simply invoking the desire to continue plea negotiations is insufficient to warrant a continuance under the Speedy Trial Act. The basis of the motion must demonstrate that the ends of justice would actually be served by granting the continuance, i.e., the plea negotiations will be more likely to result in an actual plea because the parties had more time.
This ground is only offered by Defendant Mason, however, because neither party has provided adequate grounds for their respective motions separate analysis is unnecessary. --------
Defendants claim they need for time to review discovery, but they haven't claimed that discovery was not timely provided or that it wasn't sufficient. Defendants were indicted in early September and are each charged with a single count of possessing a firearm as convicted felons. (DE 1.) Given the uncomplicated nature of this matter, this Court cannot find a basis on which to continue the trial.
In short, there are no stated grounds from which this Court could find that a continuance would actually serve the ends of justice. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' motions to continue (DE 22-23) are DENIED;
2. The Defendants' deadlines to file motions for re-arraignment are SET ASIDE.
November 25, 2015,
/s/
KAREN K. CALDWELL, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY