Opinion ID: 889300
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Investigation and Plea Negotiations (Sept. 9, 2004, to Jan. 27, 2005; 140 days)

Text: ¶ 9 As noted, the District Court set the omnibus hearing for October 7, 2004. On that date, Nistler informed the court that he and the prosecutor had just begun discussing a plea agreement. In addition, he stated that before he could advise the court on whether there was going to be a plea agreement, he needed an investigator to pursue some leads. He stated that he would be filing a motion to fund the investigator, and he suggested that the omnibus hearing be continued for a month. The prosecutor did not object, and the court reset the hearing for November 12. ¶ 10 On November 12, Nistler reported that he had had tentative discussions with the State concerning a plea offer. In addition, he reported that the individual he uses for major felony investigations had not been available until just recently due to a homicide investigation in Cascade County. Nistler requested a continuance of the omnibus hearing for another month. The prosecutor did not object, and the court reset the hearing for December 9. ¶ 11 On December 9, Nistler reported that the investigation was still in progress and that he was waiting for the State to reduce its plea proposal to writing. He requested two additional weeks. The court, however, stated that it was concerned, obviously, that this case has been pending for a significant period of time. In response, Nistler contended that much of the delay thus far was attributable to obtaining the psychological evaluation through the State Hospital prior to arraignment. In addition, the prosecutor stated that he did not object to another continuance, noting that the additional footwork needing to be done in a case of this sort (deliberate homicide) justified the additional time requested by the defense. The court continued the omnibus hearing to December 23, but stated that in the event of any further continuances, there needs to be a serious discussion with regard to the defendant's right to a speedy trial in this matter. ¶ 12 On December 23, Nistler requested a four-week continuance for the investigator to complete his review of the case. He indicated that this would be the last delay that would be needed. The court agreed to grant the continuance on the condition that Couture file a speedy trial waiver. The prosecutor noted that he would not object to a continuance, and the court then reset the omnibus hearing for January 20, 2005. Couture's waiver, filed January 3, did not specify the period covered. It simply recited that additional time was needed to allow his attorney to fully review the evidence and interview witnesses in his case. ¶ 13 On January 20, Nistler reported that the prosecutor had made a tentative plea offer. Citing the court's plea agreement policy, he requested a one-week continuance so that the prosecutor could reduce the offer to writing and Nistler and Couture could then review it before the omnibus hearing and make certain that that is his intent to go to trial with no offer on the table. A week later, on January 27, Nistler informed the court that Couture would not be accepting the State's offer and that [w]e have exhausted the plea proposal process at this point. Thus far, 255 days had passed since Couture's arrest.