U.S. v. HICKMAN, 2:13-CR-076. (2014)
Court: District Court, E.D. Tennessee
Number: infdco20141105b95
Visitors: 12
Filed: Nov. 04, 2014
Latest Update: Nov. 04, 2014
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEON JORDAN, District Judge. This case is before the court on the defendant's motion for a continuance of his December 2, 2014 trial date [doc. 124]. Defense counsel advises that both he and the prosecuting attorney are scheduled for oral argument before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on that date. The defendant accordingly requests a two-day continuance. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the motion outweigh the best interests of the public
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER LEON JORDAN, District Judge. This case is before the court on the defendant's motion for a continuance of his December 2, 2014 trial date [doc. 124]. Defense counsel advises that both he and the prosecuting attorney are scheduled for oral argument before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on that date. The defendant accordingly requests a two-day continuance. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the motion outweigh the best interests of the public a..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
LEON JORDAN, District Judge.
This case is before the court on the defendant's motion for a continuance of his December 2, 2014 trial date [doc. 124]. Defense counsel advises that both he and the prosecuting attorney are scheduled for oral argument before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals on that date. The defendant accordingly requests a two-day continuance.
The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting the motion outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In particular, the court finds that the failure to grant the motion would unreasonably deny continuity of counsel for both parties. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The motion requires a delay in the proceedings. Therefore, all the time from the filing of the motion to the new trial date is excludable as provided by the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
The defendant's motion [doc. 124] is GRANTED, and this criminal case is CONTINUED to Thursday, December 4, 2014, at 10:00 a.m. A pretrial hearing in light of Missouri v. Frye, 132 S.Ct. 1399 (2012), and Laffler v. Cooper, 132 S.Ct. 1376 (2012), is SET for 9:45 a.m. that same day.
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Source: Leagle
