Opinion
Criminal Action No. 04-370.
July 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
The government has filed a Motion entitled "Motion to Have Case Declared Complex, and for Continuance of the Trial Date." In its Motion and at the pretrial conference held on July 20, 2004, government counsel has summarized the nature and volume of evidence which it has obtained during the grand jury investigation which led to this indictment. The number of documents, taped conversations, and other materials makes it clear beyond any doubt that this is indeed a "complex case." No defense counsel at the conference call objected to the designation of the case as a complex case and for the continuance of the trial date, except for one defense counsel whose objections are discussed and overruled below.
The Court acknowledges the government's description of the case set forth in the motion, and notes that the indictment charges twelve defendants with 56 counts, with allegations over a wide ranging period of time, some affecting a number of third parties, as well as allegations of corruption within the Philadelphia city government. The government anticipates, in the absence of stipulations, that presentation of its case will take eight weeks, and there is no way to predict whether, if any defendant presents a case, how long such presentation may take. All counsel need additional time to prepare for trial.
The Court has already issued Pretrial Order No. 1 setting deadlines for certain motions, and anticipates having regular status calls and deciding pretrial motions on a priority basis. The Court finds that this is a complex case, that the ends of justice are served by continuing the trial of this case, and that this action outweighs the best interest of the public and the Defendants in a trial within the time set by the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.
However, this is indeed a case where the parties and the public have an interest in a prompt trial. At the pretrial conference, the Court discussed with counsel the prospects of a trial beginning in January 2005; no counsel objected at that time. Although the Court stated at the conference that it would not set a trial date until the next status conference, now scheduled for August 25, 2004, the Court has considered that because of the number of parties and counsel, and in order that all counsel may forthwith direct their energies towards a specific trial date, and so that counsel will be able to avoid any scheduling conflicts, it would be prudential to set a trial date at this time, giving counsel an opportunity, by written objection prior to August 25, 2004, to object to the trial date as set below for good cause shown.
The Court sets Wednesday, January 12, 2005 as the trial date. The Court will hold pretrial hearings on January 10 and 11, 2005 on any undecided pretrial motions, and discuss with counsel and rule on any procedural and logistical matters.
The Court instructs counsel to ascertain, given the predicted length of the trial and volume of the potential evidence, that they have sufficient resources so that they will be prepared to begin trial on January 12, 2005. If necessary, counsel shall augment their own preparation for trial by associating themselves with additional counsel, paralegals, legal assistants, and implementing litigation support technology as may be necessary so that the trial will commence on January 12, 2005 and proceed expeditiously towards a conclusion.
In order to ensure that all counsel who have entered their appearance in this case are available, the Court will attach them pursuant to Local Civil Rule 1.1.1, and the Standing Order on Calendar Control dated January 1, 1970, paragraph 6 of which provides for "advance special listing."
Defendant Denis Carlson objects to the government's motion on the ground that the charges against him are different from and not as complicated as the charges against all other Defendants, and thus, the case is not complex as to him. The objection cites no authority to warrant denial of the motion on such a ground. This Court concludes that Mr. Carson's objection will be overruled because his rights can be fully protected by a motion under Rule 14 for Relief from Prejudicial Joinder, which, if filed promptly, and if it is meritorious and is granted, would allow the court to schedule a trial for Mr. Carlson in advance of the trial of January 12, 2005.
An appropriate Order follows.
PRETRIAL ORDER NO. 2
AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2004, for the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum, the government's Motion to Have Case Declared Complex and to Continue Trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A), (Docket No. 48), is GRANTED.Pursuant to Standing Order on Calendar Control dated January 1, 1970, trial of this case is specially listed for January 12, 2005. The Court will hold pretrial hearings, as necessary, on January 10 and 11, 2005. Any party objecting to this trial date shall file such objection, prior to the status conference scheduled for August 25, 2004, showing good cause why the trial should not begin as now scheduled.
The counsel listed below, who have entered their appearances in this case, are attached beginning January 10, 2005, noting that this trial may last for twelve (12) weeks. A copy of this Order shall be distributed to all Judges of this Court.