Opinion ID: 2981099
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The June 9, 2009 Continuance

Text: Richardson moved for another continuance on May 14, 2009, claiming that the volume of discovery documents coupled with trouble getting documents from previous counsel and viewing items on a hard drive prevented him from being prepared. The Government did not oppose that motion, but suggested that ninety days would be adequate. At the June 9, 2009 hearing on the motion, Richardson’s counsel spoke at length, emphasizing the complexity of the trusts involved in the case, and requested a continuance of six months. The court indicated that, if it were to grant the six-month continuance, then it would not entertain any more continuances based on Richardson’s counsel’s need for time to prepare. In response to the argument, the court made the following finding: And the new schedule is in response to [Richardson’s counsel’s] motion in the interest of justice, and it supersedes and outweighs the government’s interest in a speedy trial, the defendant’s interest in the speed of the trial, and the public’s interest in a speedy trial in order to permit [Richardson’s counsel] to adequately prepare for the trial, or whatever other strategy or decision he might suggest to Mr. Richardson. No. 11-3127 United States v. Richardson Page 8 (Page ID # 827.) The court confirmed with Richardson, co-defendant Welti, and the Government that each agreed to the extension and the new schedule, which set the trial date for January 5, 2010. The court correctly found that this continuance was in the interests of justice and stated its findings on the record contemporaneously with that finding. Thus, the court met the requirements of Zedner, 547 U.S. at 506–508. No further statement from the court was needed. See id. Accordingly, this continuance was also properly excluded from the speedy-trial clock.