Opinion
Case No. 2:03CR0136
May 15, 2003
ORDER
Before the Court is plaintiff's motion to continue trial. The plaintiff, in its motion, states a preference, in the interest of judicial economy, to try both co-defendants in the same trial. Therefore, plaintiff argues that defendant Yeaman's trial should be continued to June 30, 2003 — the date defendant Woostenhulme is scheduled for trial — pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(f). Defendant argues that, if granted, the continuation will violate defendant Yeaman's right to a speedy trial.
18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(1)(f) excludes delay resulting from any pretrial motion from computation of the time for purposes of the speedy trial act. "All defendants who are joined for trial generally fall within the speedy trial computation of the latest codefendant." Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 323 fn. 2 (1986). See also 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(3)(B)(7). In this case, defendant Yeaman was taken into custody and arraigned on February 25, 2003. Defendant Woostenhulme was arraigned on April 25, 2003. The June 30, 2003 continuation falls within the speedy trial computation of defendant Woostenhulme.
Accordingly, based on the forgoing reasons, plaintiff's motion to continue trial is GRANTED, and defendant Yeaman's trial shall be continued until June 30, 2003 at 8:30 a.m. The additional time granted is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C.A. § 3161.