U.S. v. Crocker, 4:18-CR-00006-CDL-MSH-1. (2018)
Court: District Court, M.D. Georgia
Number: infdco20181231806
Visitors: 9
Filed: Dec. 28, 2018
Latest Update: Dec. 28, 2018
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Defendant Marcus Crocker has moved the Court to continue hearing of his case, presently scheduled for January 3, 2018. The Government does not oppose this motion. Defendant was arraigned on February 13, 2018, and is currently in custody. Additional time is needed to order, receive and review the transcripts from Mr. Crocker's previous hearings on September 27, 2018 and December 13, 2018. Furthermore, counsel needs time
Summary: ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE CLAY D. LAND , Chief District Judge . Defendant Marcus Crocker has moved the Court to continue hearing of his case, presently scheduled for January 3, 2018. The Government does not oppose this motion. Defendant was arraigned on February 13, 2018, and is currently in custody. Additional time is needed to order, receive and review the transcripts from Mr. Crocker's previous hearings on September 27, 2018 and December 13, 2018. Furthermore, counsel needs time ..
More
ORDER ON MOTION FOR CONTINUANCE
CLAY D. LAND, Chief District Judge.
Defendant Marcus Crocker has moved the Court to continue hearing of his case, presently scheduled for January 3, 2018. The Government does not oppose this motion. Defendant was arraigned on February 13, 2018, and is currently in custody. Additional time is needed to order, receive and review the transcripts from Mr. Crocker's previous hearings on September 27, 2018 and December 13, 2018. Furthermore, counsel needs time to discuss Mr. Crocker's options with him and enter in to plea negotiations with the government, if so warranted. The Court finds that it is in the interests of justice to allow the parties to complete the needed investigation, order, receive and review transcripts necessary to counsel Mr. Crocker, and that this interest outweighs the interest of the Defendant and the public in a speedy trial. Failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel reasonable time for effective preparation and could result in a miscarriage of justice. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion for Continuance Doc. 47 is GRANTED, and it is hereby ordered that this case shall be continued until a date yet to be determined by the Court. The delay occasioned by this continuance shall be deemed excludable pursuant to the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
It is SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
