Opinion ID: 77358
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: October 28, 2004, Conferences

Text: 12 At an October 28 status conference before the district court, Wilk requested a continuance of the December 13 trial and waived his right to a speedy trial. 6 Wilk stated that a continuance was necessary due to outstanding discovery issues and a December 13 meeting with the Department of Justice Capital Case Unit regarding whether the government would seek the death penalty. 13 The government opined that the case was not complicated, but acknowledged that Wilk's mental status was a potentially complicating matter. The government suggested a May trial date because it believed that discovery would have been complete by then and a decision would have been made about seeking the death penalty. The government estimated that it would deliver its discovery materials to the defense by the following week. 14 Wilk outlined the outstanding discovery issues, including access to Wilk's residence, review of conversations between Wilk and Jones, and review of police reports and 911 recordings. Wilk also expressed his need to procure experts for the guilt and penalty phases and to allow them time to analyze the evidence. Wilk then expressed his frustration with the fact that he did not have access to his residence for investigative purposes and noted that he was currently preparing for the upcoming meeting with the Department of Justice regarding the death penalty in this case. Wilk opined that the defense could not be ready by May 2005 due to its need to prepare, especially if the government opted to seek the death penalty. 15 The district court reset the trial date from December 13, 2004, to April 18, 2005. Wilk objected to the April 18 trial date, believing that there was no way we can be ready for a potential death penalty case by that time. The district court overruled the objection, noting that Wilk's two counsels were qualified and experienced with trying capital cases, that an April 18 trial was over five months away, and that the case was not complex. 16 At a separate status conference on October 28, 2004, the magistrate judge addressed discovery deadlines. Wilk again expressed his dissatisfaction with the April 18 trial date, indicating that counsel would not be ready for trial by that time. Wilk's counsel expressly stressed that the case was a potential capital case[.]