IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA :
: Cr. No. xx-157 (SS) v. :
:
:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, :
:
Defendant. :
MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Defendant xxxxxxx, through counsel, respectfully moves to continue the trial of this case from December 2, 1996 to a date after the conclusion of a trial in which defendant xxxxxxxx is a co-defendant, which trial is scheduled for January 13, 1997.(1) As grounds for his motion, defendant xxxxxxxx shows the court:
1. Mr. xxxxxxxx was arrested when a search warrant was executed at his family's home and drugs and weapons were located in a room which the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents who conducted the search claim was occupied by him.(2) Trial was originally scheduled for September 20, 1996.
2. At undersigned counsel's request, and without opposition from the government, the trial was continued to December 2, 1996. At the time that that date was set, counsel for Mr. xxxxxxxx advised the court that Mr. xxxxxxxx had recently been indicted in a case charging him with conspiracy to murder a federal witness, and murder of a federal witness. Counsel requested that the court continue the instant case, because counsel anticipated that a great deal of pretrial work would be necessary to prepare the murder case for trial. Counsel did not believe that she could adequately prepare both the instant case and the murder case for trial simultaneously. At that time, Michael Lennon, Assistant United States Attorney, counsel for the government in the instant case, represented that he believed undersigned counsel's concerns were valid and that he would not oppose a continuance of the instant trial until after the resolution of the murder case involving Mr. xxxxxxxx. However, this court expressed concern that the trial date in the murder case might be so far in the future that this case would be unreasonably delayed.
3. Since this case was last before the court, a trial date of January 13, 1997 has been set in the homicide case. Therefore, if this case is scheduled to follow the homicide case, there will be only a few weeks delay between the scheduled trial date and a date in early February.(3)
4. Counsel is immersed in pretrial preparations in the murder case. That case is complex, there are three co-defendants, there are a large number of government witnesses, and a great deal of tape-recorded and physical evidence. If Mr. xxxxxxxx was convicted in that case, he would be sentenced to life without parole. Given the time involved in the pretrial preparation in the homicide case, counsel is renewing her request that the instant case be continued.
5. Mr. xxxxxxxx already waived his rights under the Speedy Trial Act, in order to seek the continuance of the September 20 trial date.
6. Counsel spoke with the Assistant United States Attorney assigned to this case, Michael Lennon, Esq., and he advised counsel that he does not oppose this request to continue this case until after the January 13, 1997 trial date.
Respectfully submitted,
A.J. KRAMER
FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER
____________________________
Reita Pendry
Assistant Federal Defender
625 Indiana Avenue, N.W. #550
Washington, D. C. 20004
(202)208-7500
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I served a copy of the foregoing Motion to Continue Trial upon Michael Lennon, Esq., Assistant United States Attorney, 555 4th Street, N.W., Washington, D. C. 20001, by facsimile, and by mail, postage prepaid, addressed to him at the above address, this 7th day of November, 1996.
_____________________________
Reita Pendry
1. That case is United States v. Louis xxxxxxxx, Marcellus xxxxxxx and Ralph xxxxxxxx, Criminal Number 96-319, presently assigned to the Honorable Norma Holloway Johnson of this court.
2. Although Mr. xxxxxxxx was arrested on a warrant charging bank robbery, that case was soon dismissed and he was indicted for offenses growing out of the search.
3. Although the murder case is presently on the Judge Johnson's calendar, defense counsel in that case have filed a joint motion asking that the case be transferred back to this court, in light of the fact that the case is related to the instant case, under Rule 405(c)(1) of the Rules of this court. That motion is pending, and at a status hearing on November 1, 1996, Judge Johnson indicated her intention to transfer the case back to the Calendar Committee for re-assignment to this court, unless the government could provide her with some authority to persuade her otherwise.