U.S. v. GARLIN, 2:12-cr-00070-BLW. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Idaho
Number: infdco20120705916
Visitors: 19
Filed: Jul. 03, 2012
Latest Update: Jul. 03, 2012
Summary: ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge. The Court has before it Defendant Garlin's Second Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Extend Pretrial Motions Deadline (Dkt. 31). The Court granted Defendant's first motion to continue, granting the defendant a continuance of almost 90 days. Defense counsel explains that there is hope that the parties in this case and a companion state court case can reach a global resolution of the matters. Counsel asks the Court to continue the trial so counsel
Summary: ORDER B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge. The Court has before it Defendant Garlin's Second Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Extend Pretrial Motions Deadline (Dkt. 31). The Court granted Defendant's first motion to continue, granting the defendant a continuance of almost 90 days. Defense counsel explains that there is hope that the parties in this case and a companion state court case can reach a global resolution of the matters. Counsel asks the Court to continue the trial so counsel a..
More
ORDER
B. LYNN WINMILL, Chief District Judge.
The Court has before it Defendant Garlin's Second Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Extend Pretrial Motions Deadline (Dkt. 31). The Court granted Defendant's first motion to continue, granting the defendant a continuance of almost 90 days.
Defense counsel explains that there is hope that the parties in this case and a companion state court case can reach a global resolution of the matters. Counsel asks the Court to continue the trial so counsel and Mr. Garlin can discuss the matter thoroughly to determine how Mr. Garlin wishes to proceed. Counsel also suggests that more time is needed to complete investigation of the matter, but gives no good reason why the matter could not have been fully investigated during the past 90 days.
Under all these circumstances, the Court finds that a continuance is not warranted. Defendant has had ample time to investigate this matter, which is a relatively simple case. The parties have also had sufficient time to discuss whether a global resolution is possible. Accordingly, the Court will deny the motion.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Defendant Garlin's Second Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Extend Pretrial Motions Deadline (Dkt. 31) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
