Opinion
Criminal No. 2019-33
09-26-2019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. DUANE WOODS Defendant.
ATTORNEYS: Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney Nathan Brooks, AUSA United States Attorney's Office St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For the United States of America, Richard Coughlin, FPD Melanie Lark Turnbull, AFPD Office of the Federal Public Defender St. Thomas, U.S.V.I. For Duane Woods.
ATTORNEYS: Gretchen Shappert, United States Attorney
Nathan Brooks, AUSA
United States Attorney's Office
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For the United States of America, Richard Coughlin, FPD
Melanie Lark Turnbull, AFPD
Office of the Federal Public Defender
St. Thomas, U.S.V.I.
For Duane Woods. ORDER GÓMEZ, J.
Before the Court is the application of Duane Woods ("Woods") to waive his speedy trial. For the reasons stated herein, the time to try this case is extended up to and including November 30, 2019.
While the Speedy Trial Act requires that defendants be tried within seventy days of indictment, the Court specifically finds that extending this period would be in the best interest of justice for several reasons. First, an extension is necessary to allow Woods time to secure an expert and provide adequate notice of such expert to the government in preparing for trial. Second, Woods made his request with the advice and consent of counsel. Third, without an extension, Woods would be denied reasonable time necessary to explore plea options and prepare for trial.
Consistent with these concerns, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized that "whether or not a case is 'unusual' or 'complex,' an 'ends of justice' continuance may in appropriate circumstances be granted." United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 444 (3d Cir. 1994); United States v. Dota, 33 F.3d 1179(9th Cir. 1994) ("An ends of justice continuance may be justified on grounds that one side needs more time to prepare for trial [even if the] case [i]s not 'complex.'"); see also United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866, 883 (3d Cir. 1992) ("[T]he district court did not abuse its discretion when it delayed the trial to give counsel . . . opportunity to . . . decid[e] upon and prepar[e] an appropriate defense."); United States v. Brooks, 697 F.2d 517, 522 (3d Cir. 1982) (holding there was no abuse of discretion where district court found that multiple count, multiple defendant "case was complex and required additional time for adequate preparation.").
The premises considered; it is hereby
ORDERED that the time beginning from the date of this order granting an extension through November 30, 2019, shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial for Woods must be initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
S\_________
Curtis V. Gómez
District Judge