Opinion ID: 821098
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: October 5, 2010 Continuance Motion

Text: Villarreal argues that the district court erred in finding that the government's October 5, 2010 request for a continuance would serve the ends of justice because, according to Villarreal, the government was not diligent in getting the evidence tested. Villarreal asserts that the district court ignored the fact the prosecution was aware the court on August 24, 2010, had set trial for November 2. He asserts that he was entitled to expect the prosecution would be diligent in trying to meet this trial date. He concedes, however, that the government was under no obligation to have the evidence tested. Nevertheless, he asserts that his right to a speedy trial should not . . . be defeated because of the prosecution's timing in deciding to submit for analysis evidence necessary for trial less than a month before trial necessitating a continuance request. He also argues that the district court ignored [his] just reliance on the truth of the prosecution's representations in its October 5 motion when deciding to agree to it and file a waiver of speedy trial. Finally, he maintains that the court erred in its factual and ultimate conclusion the case was in its early stages on October 5, 2010, and therefore, it was not a lack of diligence on the prosecution's part to fail to ask the lab to expedite testing. Here, 42 days lapsed between the date of Villarreal's initial appearance through the date that the government filed its first continuance motion. We conclude, however, that the record supports the district court's finding that the delay in testing was not unreasonable or indicative of a lack of diligence. Villarreal, 2011 WL 2182423, at . Notably, the court found that [e]ven if Ms. Olson informed the court the evidence was submitted for testing on October 4, 2010, the court's decision would have remained the same. Id. at . The record shows that after Agent Blackburn turned the evidence over to the SDFL, Olson immediately called the SDFL to inquire when testing would be completed, and the SDFL staff estimated completion the week of December 2010—nearly nine weeks later. Villarreal has not shown how the district 547 U.S. at 503. -15- court clearly erred in concluding that the government was diligent when it (1) immediately inquired when the testing would be completed and (2) filed a motion for continuance the day after the evidence was turned into the SDFL and after the SDFL gave a completion date of approximately December 2010. Villarreal has cited no authority that a lapse of 42 days is per se unreasonable or indicative of a lack of diligence. Villarreal concedes that the government had no obligation to submit the evidence for DNA testing. And, he ignores that the test results could have potentially supplied evidence beneficial to his defense.