U.S. v. TAYLOR, 8:12CR82. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nebraska
Number: infdco20120627c23
Visitors: 8
Filed: Jun. 26, 2012
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2012
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motions to continue by defendant Ruth Taylor (Taylor) (Filing Nos. 15 and 17). Taylor seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for July 2, 2012. Taylor has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Taylor consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 17-1). Taylo
Summary: ORDER THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge. This matter is before the court on the motions to continue by defendant Ruth Taylor (Taylor) (Filing Nos. 15 and 17). Taylor seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for July 2, 2012. Taylor has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Taylor consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 17-1). Taylor..
More
ORDER
THOMAS D. THALKEN, Magistrate Judge.
This matter is before the court on the motions to continue by defendant Ruth Taylor (Taylor) (Filing Nos. 15 and 17). Taylor seeks a continuance of the trial scheduled for July 2, 2012. Taylor has submitted an affidavit in accordance with paragraph 9 of the progression order whereby Taylor consents to the motion and acknowledges she understands the additional time may be excludable time for the purposes of the Speedy Trial Act (Filing No. 17-1). Taylor's counsel represents that government's counsel has no objection to the motion. Upon consideration, the motion will be granted.
IT IS ORDERED:
1. Taylor's motions to continue trial (Filing Nos. 15 and 17) are granted.
2. Trial of this matter is re-scheduled for August 20, 2012, before Judge Joseph F. Bataillon and a jury. The ends of justice have been served by granting such motions and outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. The additional time arising as a result of the granting of the motions, i.e., the time between June 26, 2012, and August 20, 2012, shall be deemed excludable time in any computation of time under the requirement of the Speedy Trial Act for the reason that defendant's counsel requires additional time to adequately prepare the case. The failure to grant additional time might result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B).
Source: Leagle
