Opinion
CASE NO. 3:07-cr-252-MEF (WO).
April 16, 2008
ORDER
On April 15, 2008, the defendant filed a Motion to Continue (Doc. #17). While the granting of a continuance is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge, United States v. Warren, 772 F.2d 827, 837 (11th Cir. 1985), the court is, of course, limited by the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The Speedy Trial Act provides generally that the trial of a defendant in a criminal case shall commence within 70 days of the latter of the filing date of the indictment or the date the defendant appeared before a judicial officer in such matter. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). See United States v. Vasser, 916 F.2d 624 (11th Cir. 1990).
The Act excludes from this 70 day period any continuance that the judge grants "on the basis of his 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." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).
The motion states that defendant's counsel has been involved in negotiations with the United States Attorney's office in attempts to settle this case. Counsel for the government does not oppose a continuance. Consequently, the court concludes that a continuance of this case is warranted and that the ends of justice served by continuing this case outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See United States v. Davenport, 935 F.2d 1223, 1235 (11th Cir. 1991) (reasonable time necessary for effective preparation is a significant factor for granting a continuance under the Speedy Trial Act).
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
1. That the defendant's motion filed on April 15, 2008 is GRANTED;
2. That the trial of this case is continued from the April 28, 2008 trial term to the August 11, 2008 trial term in Opelika, Alabama.
3. That the Magistrate Judge conduct a pretrial conference prior to the August 11, 2008 trial term.