Opinion ID: 2807845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial Timing

Text: Benjamin's trial was scheduled to conclude on Monday, -11- September 16, 2013. Well before trial, a pretrial schedule was set, without objection, which so provided. The presiding judge had planned to travel outside Maine the following day. During the trial, the judge ensured that the trial proceeded efficiently, telling the parties to keep using every available minute and warning the jury that they might need to stay late on Monday. The defendant's counsel expressed some concern about the schedule on Thursday, September 12. But on Friday, September 13, the parties rested, and the defense told the judge, We are in very good shape. No further witnesses. The jury deliberated on the 16th and returned a verdict the same day. On appeal, Benjamin argues that the district court unreasonably and arbitrarily insisted that the case be finished by Monday, September 16, 2013, depriving him of a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. Our review is for abuse of discretion, reversing only where the Court exhibited an unreasonable and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in the face of a justifiable request for delay. United States v. RomeroLopez, 695 F.3d 17, 21 (1st Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Mangual-Santiago, 562 F.3d 411, 429-30 (1st Cir. 2009)) (internal quotation marks omitted). At the close of his case, defense counsel expressed satisfaction with the proceedings. On appeal, Benjamin does not identify any evidence he was prevented from offering or any prejudice to him. See United States v. Delgado- -12- Marrero, 744 F.3d 167, 196 (1st Cir. 2014) (emphasizing the importance of prejudice when reviewing the denial of a continuance). The district court did not abuse its discretion.2