Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Ladd

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

May 2, 2018

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v.
DAVID MICHAEL LADD, a/k/a “David McRee.” Criminal Action

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          Sam A. Lindsay, United States District Judge

         I. Background

         On April 18, 2018, the Government filed its First Motion to Continue Trial Setting and Pretrial Deadlines (Doc. 21). The Government requests that the trial of this action, currently set for May 21, 2018, be continued by at least 60 days so that it may have continuity of counsel at trial and have sufficient time to prepare its case-in-chief in light of a Fifth Circuit oral argument and several other trials for which Ms. Jamie Hoxie, the Government's lead counsel, must prepare.

         On April 20, 2018, Defendant David Michael Ladd (“Defendant” or “Ladd”) filed his Notice of Intent and Response to Government's Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 22). He advised the court that he intends “to file a motion to dismiss the Indictment after the Speedy Trial clock runs on May 2, 2018.” Def.'s Resp. 2. Defendant further advises the court that he is invoking his right to a speedy trial in this case.

         Ladd opposes the Government's request for a continuance because he contends that: (1) the current trial setting of May 21, 2018, violates the Speedy Trial Act; (2) the Government has had sufficient time to prepare for the case and its lack of diligence does not warrant a continuance; and (3) Defendant's interests in a speedy trial are more important than any potential advantages of agreeing to the Government's motion to continue the trial.

         On April 24, 2018, the Government's Reply to Defendant's Response to Motion to Continue Trial (Doc. 25) was filed. The Government contends that its motion to continue the trial should be granted and that the motion does not violate the Speedy Trial Act. The Government also advised the court that on April 13, 2018, Defendant informed the Government that he would file a motion for a continuance in this case and then later informed the Government on April 18, 2018, of his intent to assert his right to a speedy trial. In further support of its motion to continue, the Government asserts in its reply that it is not requesting a continuance due to a lack a diligence but because the current trial setting is close to several other significant deadlines in cases for which Ms. Jamie Hoxie is lead counsel for the Government.

         On April 25, 2018, the court held a hearing on the Government's motion to continue. During the course of the hearing, several issues were discussed, including the possibility of moving the date of the trial to an earlier date to avoid any speedy trial issues, and the availability of witnesses. Defendant, through his counsel, stated that he would be ready if the case were to begin the week of May 14, 2018, or earlier, although he still contends that any date after May 2, 2018, violates the Speedy Trial Act.

         The Government stated at the hearing that it did not know about the availability of all of its witnesses and informed the court that it would inquire of their availability. With respect to the availability of its witnesses, the Government's counsel responded as follows:

The undersigned has been told that during the week of May 14, 2018, one of its witnesses who the government expects will have to testify at trial lives outside of the DFW area and is scheduled to take part in a large-scale law enforcement operation also not within the DFW area. The witness is expected to conduct surveillance as a part of the operation team, and the witness's expertise is important to the operation.
The undersigned has also been told that one of its witnesses who the government also expects will have to testify at trial has a family member who may need to undergo a medical procedure. In the event this medical procedure takes place on May 11, 2018, this witness would not be available on May 14, 2018 and possibly May 15, 2018.
While it does not render them “unavailable, ” some of the government's out-of-town witnesses were mindful that a May 14, 2018 trial date would require them to be traveling and interrupting their plans with their families for Mother's Day.

Gov.'s Not. Regarding Witnesses (Doc. 27) 1-2. In its Notice (Doc. 27), the Government also argues that its motion to continue tolls the running of the Speedy Trial Act until the court rules on it. Additionally, it urges the court to make an “ends-of-justice” determination under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). Id. at 2.

         The court disagrees with Defendant's argument that the failure to commence the trial of this action by May 2, 2018, violates the Speedy Trial Act. The court now sets forth its reasons that Defendant misapprehends the applicable provisions of the Speedy Trial Act.

         II. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.