IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, and ERIC

LEE FLORES,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

ORDER DESIGNATING CASE

AS COMPLEX 

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s

Motion (#185) to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status

Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act. The government

1 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 1 of 12
moves for a designation of this matter as a complex case pursuant

to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). 

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the

government’s Motion, DECLARES this case to be complex under 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iii), and FINDS

excludable delay for all Defendants through April 6, 2016, at

which time the Court will set a firm trial date and find a

further period of excludable delay based on the parties’

representations regarding a discovery schedule, the parties’

proposals for pretrial motions, and the parties’ proposals for

summonsing and selecting a jury.

DISCUSSION

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, requires a criminal

defendant to be tried within 70 days of arraignment unless

certain exceptions apply. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Among other

exceptions to the 70-day rule, however, the Speedy Trial Act also

provides for excludable delay from the 70-day requirement due to

the complexity of the case because such a delay serves the “ends

of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). See also United States v.

Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, “in

a case in which arrest precedes indictment” the court may exclude

time caused by a “delay in the filing of the indictment” when

that delay “is caused because the arrest occurs at a time 

2 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 2 of 12
such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of 

the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), 

or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base 

its determination are unusual or complex.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iii).

“A district court must satisfy two requirements when it

grants an ‘ends of justice’ continuance under § 3161(h)(7): 

‘(1) the continuance must be specifically limited in time; and

(2) it must be justified on the record with reference to the

facts as of the time the delay is ordered.’” Lewis, 611 F.3d at

1176 (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th

Cir. 1997)). The Court must conduct an 

appropriate inquiry to determine whether the various

parties actually want and need a continuance, how long

a delay is actually required, what adjustments can be

made with respect to the trial calendars or other plans

of counsel, and whether granting the requested

continuance would “outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”

 

Lloyd, 125 F.3d at 1269 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)). In

addition, if part of the delay is caused by the joinder of

multiple defendants, the delay “must be analyzed separately under

§ 3161(h)(6) for reasonableness.” Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

As noted, among the factors that the Speedy Trial Act

permits a court to consider in finding excludable delay is:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to

the number of defendants, the nature of the

prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of

fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate

3 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 3 of 12
preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial

itself within the time limits established by this

section.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). A case may be deemed complex

under the Speedy Trial Act on the basis that there are multiple

co-defendants and/or charges; voluminous discovery; and counsel

require additional time to conduct discovery, to file pretrial

motions, and to prepare the matter for trial. See United States

v. Butz, 982 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1993). Ultimately, the

court must determine whether the complexity of the case

“outweigh[s] the interest of individual defendants and the

continuance serve[s] ‘the ends of justice.’” Butz, 982 F.2d at

1381. See also Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

The Court concludes a designation of this matter as complex

is appropriate. This matter currently involves 26 Defendants,

many of whom remain in custody, and that status necessarily slows

and complicates preparation for pretrial motions and trial. 

Moreover, the expected volume of discovery, litigating discovery

disputes, and screening admissible evidence necessitates

additional time for the parties and the Court to prepare for

trial. The procedural steps of preparing for trial, including

the summonsing of a large jury pool and coordination of the

schedules of witnesses, counsel, and the Court, create an

overwhelming need for additional time to prepare for and to be

ready for trial at a firm trial date. Moreover, the nature of

4 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 4 of 12
the charges, the duration of the crimes alleged in this matter

(which span more than 40 days), and the distant location of the

crime scene all require the parties to have additional time to

gather and to analyze the evidence and to prepare for trial. 

Finally, the Court notes the government’s two initial volumes of

discovery consist of approximately 3,500 pages of materials

including only investigative reports, affidavits, and warrant

materials, and the government expects to provide a substantial

amount of additional discovery as it becomes available. The

Court concludes each of these factors individually and in

combination, therefore, warrants a finding that this matter is

complex and justifies a finding of excludable delay under the

Speedy Trial Act.

Until the Court has the benefit of the parties’ proposals

regarding a discovery schedule, the parties’ anticipated pretrial

motions, and the procedure and time needed for summonsing and

selecting a jury, the Court provisionally finds excludable delay

for all Defendants from the date of this Order through April 6,

2016. Moreover, because, as noted, the Court considered the

joinder of a number of co-defendants in this matter as a reason

to find this matter is complex and, therefore, to justify a

period of excludable delay, the Court also finds this period of

excludable delay is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6). See

Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

5 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 5 of 12
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, on this record the Court GRANTS the

government’s Motion (#185) to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates,

Set Status Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act and

concludes this case is complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). The Court finds excludable delay from the

date of this Order through April 6, 2016, at which time the Court

will set a firm trial date and find a further period of

excludable delay based on the parties’ representations regarding

a discovery schedule, the parties’ proposals for pretrial

motions, and the parties’ proposals for summoning and selecting a

jury.

The Court will confirm the anticipated further finding of

excludable delay is also reasonable under § 3161(h)(6) after the

Court has the benefit of the parties’ respective proposals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

6 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 6 of 12
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

AMMON BUNDY, JON RITZHEIMER,

JOSEPH O’SHAUGHNESSY, RYAN

PAYNE, RYAN BUNDY, BRIAN

CAVALIER, SHAWNA COX, PETER

SANTILLI, JASON PATRICK,

DUANE LEO EHMER, DYLAN 

ANDERSON, SEAN ANDERSON,

DAVID LEE FRY, JEFF WAYNE

BANTA, SANDRA LYNN ANDERSON,

KENNETH MEDENBACH, BLAINE

COOPER, WESLEY KJAR, COREY

LEQUIEU, NEIL WAMPLER, JASON

CHARLES BLOMGREN, DARRYL

WILLIAM THORN, GEOFFREY

STANEK, TRAVIS COX, and ERIC

LEE FLORES,

Defendants.

3:16-cr-00051-BR

 

ORDER DESIGNATING CASE

AS COMPLEX 

BROWN, Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on the government’s

Motion (#185) to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates, Set Status

Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act. The government

1 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 7 of 12
moves for a designation of this matter as a complex case pursuant

to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). 

For the reasons that follow, the Court GRANTS the

government’s Motion, DECLARES this case to be complex under 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iii), and FINDS

excludable delay for all Defendants through April 6, 2016, at

which time the Court will set a firm trial date and find a

further period of excludable delay based on the parties’

representations regarding a discovery schedule, the parties’

proposals for pretrial motions, and the parties’ proposals for

summonsing and selecting a jury.

DISCUSSION

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, requires a criminal

defendant to be tried within 70 days of arraignment unless

certain exceptions apply. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Among other

exceptions to the 70-day rule, however, the Speedy Trial Act also

provides for excludable delay from the 70-day requirement due to

the complexity of the case because such a delay serves the “ends

of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). See also United States v.

Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1175-76 (9th Cir. 2010). In addition, “in

a case in which arrest precedes indictment” the court may exclude

time caused by a “delay in the filing of the indictment” when

that delay “is caused because the arrest occurs at a time 

2 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 8 of 12
such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of 

the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), 

or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base 

its determination are unusual or complex.” 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iii).

“A district court must satisfy two requirements when it

grants an ‘ends of justice’ continuance under § 3161(h)(7): 

‘(1) the continuance must be specifically limited in time; and

(2) it must be justified on the record with reference to the

facts as of the time the delay is ordered.’” Lewis, 611 F.3d at

1176 (quoting United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263, 1268 (9th

Cir. 1997)). The Court must conduct an 

appropriate inquiry to determine whether the various

parties actually want and need a continuance, how long

a delay is actually required, what adjustments can be

made with respect to the trial calendars or other plans

of counsel, and whether granting the requested

continuance would “outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendants in a speedy trial.”

 

Lloyd, 125 F.3d at 1269 (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A)). In

addition, if part of the delay is caused by the joinder of

multiple defendants, the delay “must be analyzed separately under

§ 3161(h)(6) for reasonableness.” Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

As noted, among the factors that the Speedy Trial Act

permits a court to consider in finding excludable delay is:

Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to

the number of defendants, the nature of the

prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of

fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate

3 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 9 of 12
preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial

itself within the time limits established by this

section.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). A case may be deemed complex

under the Speedy Trial Act on the basis that there are multiple

co-defendants and/or charges; voluminous discovery; and counsel

require additional time to conduct discovery, to file pretrial

motions, and to prepare the matter for trial. See United States

v. Butz, 982 F.2d 1378, 1381 (9th Cir. 1993). Ultimately, the

court must determine whether the complexity of the case

“outweigh[s] the interest of individual defendants and the

continuance serve[s] ‘the ends of justice.’” Butz, 982 F.2d at

1381. See also Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

The Court concludes a designation of this matter as complex

is appropriate. This matter currently involves 26 Defendants,

many of whom remain in custody, and that status necessarily slows

and complicates preparation for pretrial motions and trial. 

Moreover, the expected volume of discovery, litigating discovery

disputes, and screening admissible evidence necessitates

additional time for the parties and the Court to prepare for

trial. The procedural steps of preparing for trial, including

the summonsing of a large jury pool and coordination of the

schedules of witnesses, counsel, and the Court, create an

overwhelming need for additional time to prepare for and to be

ready for trial at a firm trial date. Moreover, the nature of

4 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 10 of 12
the charges, the duration of the crimes alleged in this matter

(which span more than 40 days), and the distant location of the

crime scene all require the parties to have additional time to

gather and to analyze the evidence and to prepare for trial. 

Finally, the Court notes the government’s two initial volumes of

discovery consist of approximately 3,500 pages of materials

including only investigative reports, affidavits, and warrant

materials, and the government expects to provide a substantial

amount of additional discovery as it becomes available. The

Court concludes each of these factors individually and in

combination, therefore, warrants a finding that this matter is

complex and justifies a finding of excludable delay under the

Speedy Trial Act.

Until the Court has the benefit of the parties’ proposals

regarding a discovery schedule, the parties’ anticipated pretrial

motions, and the procedure and time needed for summonsing and

selecting a jury, the Court provisionally finds excludable delay

for all Defendants from the date of this Order through April 6,

2016. Moreover, because, as noted, the Court considered the

joinder of a number of co-defendants in this matter as a reason

to find this matter is complex and, therefore, to justify a

period of excludable delay, the Court also finds this period of

excludable delay is reasonable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6). See

Lewis, 611 F.3d at 1176.

5 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 11 of 12
CONCLUSION

Accordingly, on this record the Court GRANTS the

government’s Motion (#185) to Declare Case Complex, Vacate Dates,

Set Status Hearing, and Exclude Time Under Speedy Trial Act and

concludes this case is complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii). The Court finds excludable delay from the

date of this Order through April 6, 2016, at which time the Court

will set a firm trial date and find a further period of

excludable delay based on the parties’ representations regarding

a discovery schedule, the parties’ proposals for pretrial

motions, and the parties’ proposals for summoning and selecting a

jury.

The Court will confirm the anticipated further finding of

excludable delay is also reasonable under § 3161(h)(6) after the

Court has the benefit of the parties’ respective proposals.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 9th day of March, 2016.

/s/ Anna J. Brown

 

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge

6 - ORDER DESIGNATING CASE AS COMPLEX 

Case 3:16-cr-00051-BR Document 289 Filed 03/09/16 Page 12 of 12