Opinion ID: 4103125
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: September 2011 Scheduling Hearing and Order

Text: On September 13, 2011, the district court heard from the parties at a scheduling conference and then, on the same day, entered its order scheduling trial for a year later. At the hearing, the government informed the court that Ammar and his co-defendants were charged with crimes for which they could face the death penalty, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) would need between five months and one year to determine whether to seek that option. The DOJ’s death penalty process included a step in which the defendants could present mitigating factors. Some co-defendants therefore requested a lengthy continuance to afford them time to prepare such a presentation. Concurring with these defendants’ request for a delayed trial date, the government requested a trial date one year out. In contrast, Ammar stated that he did not believe the government would seek the death penalty against him. For this reason, he believed he could be ready to make his presentation within thirty days. In addition, Ammar opposed a lengthy continuance because he remained in custody and the district court had not granted his request for bond. As such, Ammar was unwilling to agree to the lengthy 8 Case: 13-12044 Date Filed: 11/29/2016 Page: 9 of 19 continuance sought by some of his co-defendants. Instead, he asked for a December 2011 trial date, or in the alternative, that the district court review the magistrate judge’s decision regarding pretrial detention. After the hearing, the district court issued a written order setting the case for trial. The order stated that the court had been advised during the discussion the same day “that a reasonable time allowance of approximately one year would be necessary for the parties to implement the newly-amended death policy procedures in order to permit careful consideration by the [DOJ] of whether or not this case will proceed to trial as a ‘death case.’” It also noted that “[s]everal defense counsel advised the Court that there are other procedures that will be necessary for courtappointed counsel to follow to obtain approval from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals for a budget to handle a potential death case,” while others “indicated that they were opposed to a trial date set so far in the future.” The order concluded: “After a thorough discussion, it became apparent that the Court’s best efforts to get this case tried under its normal procedures of setting conflict-free trial dates within approximately 90–120 days is not a reasonable objective.” The court then directed the clerk of court to schedule the trial for October 9, 2012.