1N THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

MEDFORD DIVISION 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

DONALD COURTNEY BIGGS, 

Defendant. 

AIKEN, Judge: 

Case No. 1: 15-cr-00225-AA 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Defendant Donald Courtney Biggs moves to continue the date of his jury trial, which is 

set for February 26, 2018. The government opposes the motion to continue. I denied the motion 

orally following the February 7, 2018, telephonic hearing on the motion. This opinion and order 

further explains the reasons behind that denial. 

In determining whether a continuance should be granted, I consider (1) defendant's 

diligence in preparing his case; (2) the likelihood the continuance would serve a useful purpose; 

(3) whether the continuance would inconvenience the parties, the court, or other witnesses; and 

( 4) whether defendant would be prejudiced by the denial of a continuance. United States v. 

Page 1 - OPINION AND ORDER 
Mejia, 69 F.3d 309, 314 (9th Cir. 1995). I also bear in mind that child victims and witnesses 

have general and special rights to reasonably prompt judicial proceedings under federal law. 

I have carefully considered the relevant factors and conclude that a continuance is not 

wairnnted. The first factor favors a continuance, as defendant, through defense counsel Terry 

Kolkey, has been diligent in preparing his case. 

Turning to the second factor, the nature of this case and the fact that Mr. Ko Ikey's trial 

preparation only began in earnest in November (after the patties' plea agreement fell through) 

suggest that granting a continuance might serve a useful purpose. However, it appears that a 

continuance would in fact have limited utility in this case. In his motion, Mr. Kolkey cited three 

reasons that a continuance was necessary: both he and his expe1i needed additional time to 

review the forensic (video) evidence, which until now has been available to him only on-site 

during limited hours at the Medford Police station; he needed additional time to review 

documentary evidence and contact witnesses related to out-of-state trips that form the foundation 

of the interstate travel counts of the indictment, in part because he did not receive the contact 

information for potential witnesses until February 2, 2018, due to a redaction error; and he 

needed additional time to review evidence, including 2200 pages of text messages, related to the 

evidence described in the government's 404(b) notice. In response to the motion and on the 

record at the telephonic hearing, the government agreed to address those concerns by, ainong 

other actions, (I) making the forensic evidence available twenty-four hours a day, seven days a 

week, both in Medford and in Portland, where the defense expe1t is located; (2) dismissing the 

interstate travel charges; and (3) permitting defense counsel to use the government's technology 

to search the text messages more quickly. 

Page 2 - OPINION AND ORDER 
The hearing on the motion convened at I 0:30am on Febrnary 6. I adjourned the hearing 

to permit the lawyers to discuss the government's proposed accommodations. When the hearing 

reconvened at 2:00pm, Mr. Kolkey and the Assistant United States Attorneys explained that they 

had reached agreements that would substantially murnw the issues to be adjudicated at trial aud, 

consequently, the evidence Mr. Kolkey would have to review and develop before trial. Mr. 

Kolkey did not withdraw the request for a continuance, but represented to the Court that he 

believed he could, with diligent preparation, be ready by February 26. In reliance on that 

representation and in recognition of the government's willingness to take Mr. Kolkey's motion 

seriously and offer pragmatic solutions, I conclude that any useful purpose served by a 

continuance would be very limited. 

The third factor weighs heavily against a continuance. This case involves minors who 

the government plans to call as witnesses; the government represents that some of those 

individuals will graduate from high school this spring, which means that they may no longer live 

in the area if this case is delayed four to six months, per the request for a continuance. The trial 

is set to begin more than two and a half years after defendant was indicted in this case. I have 

already granted one continuance over the government's objection. The government and court 

staff have rearrangement their schedules and made travel airnngements to be available for a twoweek trial. Jury summonses have already issued. In short, a continuance would significantly 

inconvenience the witnesses, the government, and the Comt. 

The fomth and most impo1tant factor is prejudice to the defendant. I conclude that 

defendant will not be prejudiced by the denial of the request for a continuance. Although the 

concerns Mr. Kolkey raised were valid, the government stepped up to meet those concerns; as a 

result, the scope of disputed issues in this case narrowed considerably, such that Mr. Kolkey 

Page 3 - OPINION AND ORDER 
stated that he believes he can be ready by February 26. I note that in addition to the 

accommodations made by the government, the Comt has agreed to delay pretrial filing deadlines 

by two full weeks, with pretrial motions briefing now due to be completed just four days before 

the pretrial conference. That delay further alleviates the risk of prejudice to defendant by giving 

Mr. Kolkey more time to review the evidence before filing those motions. 

Finally, I note that granting a continuance at this juncture would risk violating the rights 

of the minor victims and witnesses. Crime victims have "the right to proceedings free from 

umeasonable delay." 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(7). Moreover, because this is a proceeding in which 

children will be called to give testimony, the government has requested that this case be 

designated as "of special public importance," pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j). Such designation 

requires the Court to "ensure a speedy trial in order to minimize the length of time the child must 

endure the stress of involvement with the criminal process." Id I agree with the government 

that this case is of special public impo1tance and the request for designation is granted. The 

statutory rights outlined above and the designation of this case as of special impo1tance further 

weigh against granting a continuance. 

Defendant's motion to continue trial (doc. 82) is DENIED. Trial will proceed as 

scheduled on Febrnary 26, 2018. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated this f-fiday of February 2018. 

Ann 

~-~ Aiken 

United States District Judge 

Page 4 - OPINION AND ORDER