Opinion
1:21-cr-00061-LEW
06-30-2022
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. NATHAN REARDON, Defendant.
ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
LANCE E. WALKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Defendant, Nathan Reardon, has requested a two-month continuance of his trial, currently slated to begin on July 11, 2022. Defendant's chief concern is that he and his attorney have run out of time to properly prepare for trial in light of the large volume of material that counsel must review before trial. The government opposes Defendant's motion.
Though a number of factors guide a court's calculus regarding whether to continue a trial, the decision ultimately turns on whether “substantial prejudice” will likely result if the trial proceeds as scheduled. United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167, 196 (1st Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). “Ensuring that counsel possess adequate time to prepare for trial is a valid reason to continue an action.” United States v. Agosto-Pacheco, 432 F.Supp.3d 13, 23 (D.P.R. 2019). But a large volume of materials does not itself necessitate a continuance absent some “specific explanation . . . as to why those particular materials justif[y] additional time.” United States v. Williams, 630 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir. 2010).
Here, Defendant has provided no such specific explanation, instead simply cataloguing the materials at issue in this case. What's more, over two weeks have elapsed since the government provided defense counsel with additional materials for trial, which the government describes as something short of voluminous, providing ample time for counsel to review the documents and to understand their significance for trial. Defendant's request for a continuance is perplexing insofar as it directly contradicts his earlier request- filed only four weeks ago-that I schedule his case for trial for a date certain in July. In any event, I know defense counsel to be a competent attorney and am confident in his ability to be prepared for trial in July as he requested.
Defendant's Motion to Continue Trial (ECF No. 126) is therefore DENIED.
So Ordered.