!

aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 111 ooofff 777

Tyler T. Todd, #10691

1LAW
Labrum Todd Park & Velez, PLLC
1173 South 250 West, Suite, 311
St. George, Utah 84770
TEL: (435) 688-9558
FAX: (435) 673-1640
Email: tyler@1law.com
Attorneys for Defendant Hyrum Bygnal Dutson
______________________________________________________________________________
I N THE UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT
DI STRI CT OF UTAH, CENTRAL DI VI SI ON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

DEFENDANT HYRUM BYGNAL

'876216M OTI ON TO CONTI NUE
THE CURRENT TRI AL DATE

Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 2:16-CR-00082

HYRUM BYGNAL DUTSON,
District Judge Ted Stewart
Magistrate Judge Robert T. Braithwaite

Defendant.

COMES NOW the Defendant, Hyrum Bygnal Dutson, by and through his undersigned
counsel, and hereby moves this Court pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(i-iv) to continue the
currently set trial date of October 3, 2016, and to set a proposed, new trial date of May 1, 2017,
or later, as this Court deems appropriate.
ARGUM ENT
I.

THE ENDS OF JUSTI CE FACTORS WI LL BE SATI SFI ED BY A

CONTI NUANCE OF THI S TRI AL.

There are four factors the Court must consider in order to grant a continuance pursuant to 18
U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(i-iv). Here, there are three applicable factors this Court should consider
as follows:
a. Factor (i) -Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding
would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 222 ooofff 777

in a miscarriage of justice.
This factor falls squarely in favor of the Defendant. The statute of limitations is nowhere
near expiring in this case. If the Government or the Court dismisses this case without prejudice,
it can be refiled at any time in the next four years. As the Government waited over a year or
longer after beginning the investigation in this case to seek and file indictments, additional time
would cause no miscarriage of justice.
b. Factor (ii) - Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number
of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions
of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this
section.
This case involves a number of unusual and complex issues that involve eleven (11)
Defendants. The Government has admitted this case is unprecedented in many ways, and will
require this Court and counsel WRGHDOZLWKFRPSOH[FRQVWLWXWLRQDOLVVXHVRIILUVWLPSUHVVLRQ
(Docket Entry 215, at 7). As a result of the complexity of this case, the Government has
produced to Defendants an enormous, maybe unprecedented, amount of discovery. To date, the
Government has already produced 46 terabytes of video evidence, which equates to about 66,000
compact discs at 700 MB each. See Declaration of Chris Andersen 4, attached as Exhibit 2 to
WKH *RYHUQPHQWV 0RWLRQ 'RFNHW (QWU\ -2).

It has also produced a Blu-ray disc of

investigative reports (one Blu-ray holds approximately 25 MB), 24 hard drives at 2 terabytes
each (approximately 68,600 compact discs at 700 MB each), 89 native discs (for a total of 979
discs), and nearly 50,000 pages of documents. See Declaration of Erica Arvizo 6-8, attached
DV ([KLELW  WR WKH *RYHUQPHQWV 0RWLRQ 'RFNHW (QWU\ -3). Even as recent as August 1,
2016, and August 8, 2016, the Government filed its Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Certificates of

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 333 ooofff 777

Compliance. (Docket Entries 431, 446 and 450). In addition to this recently produced evidence,
it is believed that the Government has even more evidence yet to produce.
The Government claims it has devoted up to 16 Government employees since February
2016 to the task of producing discovery. (Docket Entry 215-2, 3). One paralegal, Erica Arvizo,
is said to have worked exclusively on this case since November 2015, putting in full-time hours,
plus weekends. (Docket Entry 215-3, 3). %\WKH*RYHUQPHQWVRZQFDOFXODWLRQVLWVHPSOR\HHV
have spent between 1,600 and 2,000 hours preparing evidence so far. Since first receiving
discovery materials, Defendants have spent approximately 30 hours on simply organizing
materials received so that the same can actually reviewed. (Docket Entry 215-2, 3). Therefore,
it is unreasonable to expect Defendant to adequately prepare for pretrial proceedings or for the
trial itself within the time limits established. Accordingly, this factor should be found in favor of
the Defendant.
c. Factor (iv) - Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which,
taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii),
would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would
unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or
would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the
exercise of due diligence.
There are no issues regarding the need to obtain counsel or the continuity of counsel in
this case; therefore, the first portion of this factor should not be considered by the Court.
However, the failure to grant a continuance in this matter, of which is so unusual and complex,
will deny Defendants counsel reasonable time for effective preparation. This is so even taking
into account the exercise of extraordinary due diligence by the Defendant.
Here, as this Court is aware, the Government was ordered to produce all discovery by

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 444 ooofff 777

April 15, 2016. The Government was unable to meet said deadline. This Court then gave the
Government strict instructions that all discovery was to be produced by May 31, 2016 (Docket
Entry 228). Again, the Government failed to meet their deadline. The Government continues to
supplement discovery with no apparent end in sight. What is more, the Government has been
unable to give even the slightest indication when they anticipate being able to produce the
remaining discovery.
An October 3, 2016 trial date allows approximately fifty-two (52) more days for Defense
counsel to review and analyze the growing mountains of evidence in preparation for a four-week
jury trial. It stands to reason if 16 government employees working overtime since February 2016
have not been able to simply compile and produce all the evidence, Defense Counsel should not
be expected, with infinity less resources, to process, review, and evaluate the same in preparation
for trial in the remaining approximately fifty-two (52) days.
,QDGGLWLRQWRWKH'HIHQGDQWVVXEMHFWLYHSHUVSHFWLYHRIWKHH[WUDRUGLQDU\DPRXQWRIWLPH
believed to be needed to review the discovery received and unreceived, there is also objective
opinion substantiating the same. Pursuant to Mr. Russ Aoki, Coordinating Discovery Attorney
for the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, he believes that it will take approximately 5-6
months to review the discovery provided (and that is presuming defense counsel knows what
evidence the Government anticipates to use at trial). If such information is not made available, it
PD\WDNHPRQWKVWR\HDUWRSURSHUO\SUHSDUH0U$RNLVRSLQLRQLVSHUVXDVLYHDQGVKRXOGEH
sufficient to justify this Court in continuing the currently scheduled trial date.
For these reasons, even assuming that the Government finishes producing the remaining
discovery in its possession in the immediate future, even extraordinary diligence may not

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 555 ooofff 777

adequately enable Mr. Dutson to be ready for a four-week trial beginning in approximately fiftytwo (52) days. With the sheer size of discovery that has been produced as of August 8, 2016,
and the sheer size of discovery anticipated to still be produced in this case; it will require much
more than the remaining fifty-two (52) days of diligent work to process, review, and properly
evaluate from a defense standpoint. Accordingly, this factor should be found in favor of the
Defendant.
II.

TRI AL I N OCTOBER 2016 I S UNREALI STI C GI VEN THE CURRENT

STATUS OF THE CASE.
There are nine (9) Motions pending before this Court in which a decision has yet to be

rendered (Docket Entry Nos. 185, 269, 271, 273, 274, 275, 302, 327 and 333). These Motions
are dispositive in nature and may determine how the discovery materials are approached and
evaluated. Accordingly, these Motions will shorten the 52 day window and will affect how
defense counsel prepares for trial.
In addition, this Court has scheduled an evidentiary hearing on Defendants Motion to
Dismiss for September 6, 2016 at 9:00 am. This hearing is scheduled less than thirty (30) days
from the date the current trial is scheduled to begin. Defendant will suffer a miscarriage of
justice if he is expected to prepare for this pretrial preceding and then subsequently be ready for
trial just weeks thereafter.
Additionally, on a potentially more simple issue, there are multiple attorneys with
VFKHGXOLQJ FRQIOLFWV ZLWK WKH FXUUHQW GDWH  3XUVXDQW WR WKH XQGHUVWDQGLQJ RI 0U 'XWVRQV
attorney, Mr. Robert Hunt, attorney for Lyle Steed Jeffs and Mr. Blake Hamilton, attorney for
Winford Johnson Barlow, both have a scheduling conflict with the current date. Both Mr. Hunt

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 666 ooofff 777

and Mr. Hamilton, upon information and belief, are scheduled to begin trial on other matters at
that same time. Lastly, upon and information and belief, Mr. Robert Lund, lead prosecutor for
the Government, has indicated that he has no objection to such a continuance. As such, this
Court should continue the currently scheduled trial date so as to ensure all parties are properly
represented and are properly prepared.
CONCLUSI ON
Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(B)(i-iv) and for the reasons stated above, this Court
should find that the ends of justice shall be served by granting this motion as this case is so
unusual and complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
proceedings or for the trial itself as currently scheduled. What is more, this Court should find a
continuance is required to assure necessary time for counsel to effectively prepare for trial,
taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Accordingly, Defendant Hyrum Bygnal

Dutson respectfully requests this Court to continue the current trial date of October 3, 2016 to
May 1, 2017; or to a later date as this Court deems appropriate.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2016.
1LAW
/s/ Tyler T. Todd
____________________________
Tyler T. Todd
Attorney for Defendant Hyrum Bygnal Dutson

!aaassseee 222:::111666---cccrrr---000000000888222---TTTSSS---RRRTTTBBB DDDooocccuuummmeeennnttt 444777555 FFFiiillleeeddd 000888///111777///111666 PPPaaagggeee 777 ooofff 777

CERTI FI CATE OF SERVI CE-BY NOTI CE OF ELECTRONI C FI LI NG (CM /ECF)

I hereby certify that on the 17th day of August, 2016, I electronically filed the foregoing
'()(1'$17 +<580 %<*1$/ '876216 M OTI ON TO CONTI NUE THE
CURRENT TRI AL DATE with the United States District Court, District of Utah by using the
CM/ECF system which sent notification of such to filing to all parties.
/s/ Tisha Hiatt
______________________________
Paralegal