The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE TO NOVEMBER 30, 2010
Defendant hereby requests that the Court continue the currently pending trial date to November 30, 2010. The government does not object to this request.
On July 29, 2010 the government, based upon the discovery of defendant's expert witness, Questioned Document Examiner David Moore, and the need to pursue a Rule 15 deposition of witness Louise Mitchell, requested a continuance of the trial date. That request was granted.
Subsequently, defense counsel, during a conversation with Questioned Document Examiner David Moore, discovered that a miscommunication had occurred. Mr. Moore is unavailable during the week of August 30, 2010.
Defense counsel has communicated this to AUSAs Phil Ferrari and Audrey Hemeseth. The government, as was previously stated, has no objection to the proposed continuance.
Defense counsel has consulted with the Court, and it appears November 30, 2010 is available for the trial of the matter at bar.
Mr. Moore is the central witness for the defense case. (see, Defendant's Trial Brief, filed previously with this Court). Defense counsel deeply regrets the miscommunication which has given rise to the situation at bar. However, without Mr. Moore and his vital testimony defense counsel cannot provide Defendant with effective assistance of counsel.
Therefore, for all of the foregoing reasons, defendant respectfully requests that the currently pending trial date be continued to November 30, 2010. As stated previously, the government does not object to this request. Defendant further requests that time be excluded from calculation under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this order through November 30, 2010, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Olaf W. Hedberg Atty for Clayton Klock
ORDER Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
Good cause having been shown, the jury trial currently set for August 31, 2010, is continued to November 30, 2010. Based upon the above representations, the Court finds that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Accordingly, time under the Speedy ...