United States v. Pavlovskiy, CR19-0211-JCC. (2020)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20200212d01
Visitors: 3
Filed: Feb. 11, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 11, 2020
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' agreed motion to continue the trial date and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 33). Defendant has filed a speedy trial waiver up to and including August 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 34.) Having considered the motion, the speedy trial waiver, and the relevant record, the Court hereby FINDS that: 1. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a failure to grant a continuance would deny defense
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' agreed motion to continue the trial date and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 33). Defendant has filed a speedy trial waiver up to and including August 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 34.) Having considered the motion, the speedy trial waiver, and the relevant record, the Court hereby FINDS that: 1. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a failure to grant a continuance would deny defense c..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' agreed motion to continue the trial date and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 33). Defendant has filed a speedy trial waiver up to and including August 24, 2020. (Dkt. No. 34.) Having considered the motion, the speedy trial waiver, and the relevant record, the Court hereby FINDS that:
1. Taking into account the exercise of due diligence, a failure to grant a continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, due to counsel's need for more time to review the evidence, consider possible defenses, and gather evidence material to the defense as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv);
2. Failure to grant a continuance would likely result in a miscarriage of justice as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i);
3. The additional time requested is a reasonable period of delay, given the volume of discovery disclosed by the Government, the complexity of the case, and the Government's indication that it is preparing a superseding indictment;
4. The ends of justice will best be served by a continuance, and the ends of justice outweigh the best interests of the public and Defendant in any speedier trial as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); and
5. The additional time requested between the current trial date of April 6, 2020, and the new trial date is necessary to provide defense counsel time to prepare for trial considering counsel's schedule and all of the facts set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant's motion to continue the trial date and pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 33) is GRANTED. The trial date is hereby CONTINUED from April 6, 2020, to August 10, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. The time between the date this order is issued and the new trial date is excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Any pretrial motions shall be filed no later than June 29, 2020.
Source: Leagle
