Opinion ID: 2795687
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Counsel’s Motion for a Continuance

Text: Trial judges are given significant latitude in the scheduling of trials, and we therefore review an order denying a continuance for abuse of discretion. United States v. O’Connor, 650 F.3d 839, 854 (2d Cir. 2011). Abuse of discretion will be found only when the denial of the continuance constituted an “arbitrary action that substantially impaired the defense.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Defendant contends that the District Court erred in denying his request for a continuance less than two weeks before trial. The stated reason for the motion for a continuance was that defendant’s counsel maintained that she could not “simultaneously fulfill her obligations” to another client and to defendant. The District Court denied defendant’s motion after finding that his counsel would be able to effectively represent both defendant and her other client and that “any adjournment in trial would prejudice the Government.” Far from ruling in an arbitrary manner, the District Court properly weighed the concerns of the parties and acted within its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a continuance.