Page 1 – REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Assistant Federal Public Defender

101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700

Portland, OR 97204

Tel: (503) 326-2123

Fax: (503) 326-5524

Email: ruben_iniguez@fd.org

Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

WINSTON SHROUT,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO

REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND 

MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL 

DATE

The pro se defendant, Winston Shrout, through his advisory counsel, Ruben L. 

Iñiguez, submits the following reply in support of his second motion to continue the 

current trial date. ECF 56. By way of his motion, Mr. Shrout is seeking a continuance of 

the jury trial date for 120 days (i.e., until February 7, 2017). Id.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 1 of 4
Page 2 – REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

On September 8, 2016, the government filed a written opposition to Mr. Shrout’s 

motion for a continuance. ECF 57. It asks the Court to deny his request and suggests that 

a hearing on his motion should be held. Id. Mr. Shrout did not request a hearing on his 

motion, and none is necessary.1 However, a brief reply to the government’s submission 

is required as it ignores and misstates several undisputed facts:

1. This Court has rightfully “declare[d] the case Complex.” ECF 26.

2. While the government is represented by not one, but two, seasoned trial 

attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Mr. Shrout is representing 

himself, with some assistance by advisory counsel. Mr. Shrout has no legal training or 

experience.

3. Yesterday, September 8, barely two hours after the government filed its 

opposition to Mr. Shrout’s motion, advisory counsel received via Federal Express yet 

another batch of discovery from the government. The disk contains more than 114 pages 

of materials. The government makes no mention of this fact in its written submission to 

the Court. See ECF 57.

4. The government concedes that Mr. Shrout “accurately states the scope of 

discovery [it has produced] in this case.” ECF at 3. To date, the government has 

 

1 The parties’ written submissions are thorough and more than sufficient to allow a ruling on the motion. 

Additional taxpayer dollars should not be expended for counsel to fly from Washington, D.C., to Portland 

with “48 hours advance notice” for the purpose of orally presenting arguments which have been fully 

briefed.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 2 of 4
Page 3 – REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

produced: more than 16,300 pages of documents distributed across 18 separate disks; one 

hard drive containing forensic images of nine separate computers (or a total of 1.81 

terabytes of data); another hard drive containing 800 gigabytes of data located in a single, 

disorganized folder; and more than 65 hours of video and audio tape materials.

5. The government attempts to minimize the tremendous volume of materials 

confronting Mr. Shrout, claiming he is “focused more on the amount of material provided 

than on what the material contained.” ECF 57 at 4. The government disregards the fact 

that Mr. Shrout must necessarily review all the materials it has produced in order to 

determine “what the material contain[s].”

6. Less than six months have elapsed since Mr. Shrout was arraigned on the 

Superseding Indictment. ECF 26. Prior to the government’s filing of the Superseding 

Indictment, the only charges against Mr. Shrout were misdemeanors. ECF 1. He now 

faces an additional 13 felonies. ECF 17. The gravity of the new charges make it 

imperative that he be afforded sufficient time to prepare adequately for trial.

7. The government has had more than eight years to investigate its case and 

prepare for trial. By contrast, Mr. Shrout has had less than one year to consider the 

charges, review the voluminous discovery, conduct investigation, and prepare for trial.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 3 of 4
Page 4 – REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

8. The government claims Mr. Shrout “has requested an additional six months 

of time to prepare for trial.” ECF at 2. That is not true. Mr. Shrout’s motion makes clear 

he is only requesting a continuance of four months (i.e., 120 days). See ECF 56.

9. While it is true that the Speedy Trial Act is intended to protect the rights of 

both a defendant and the public to a speedy trial, the undisputed facts in this particular 

case establish that Mr. Shrout’s right to due process of law and the ends of justice 

outweigh the public’s rights.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of September, 2016.

/s/ Ruben L. Iñiguez

Ruben L. Iñiguez

Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO Document 58 Filed 09/09/16 Page 4 of 4