Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

Case: 5:18-cr-00106-GFVT Doc #: 31 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 1 of 3 - Page ID#: 147




Plaintiff, ) Criminal No. 5:18-cr-00106-GFVT
V. )

*** *** *** ***

This matter is before the Court on the Defendants’ Joint Motion to Continue Trial,

Declare Case Complex, and to Extend Pretrial Deadlines. [R. 27.] The Court previously granted

the motion but did not set a trial date. [R. 29.] At a pretrial scheduling conference on November

7, 2018, the Defendants again requested this matter be continued until September 2019. [R. 30.]

The United States noted the extraordinary length of this continuance but conceded that this case

would require a significant amount of time. Both parties stressed their desire for a date that

would not later be continued in order to make logistical arrangements for a number of out-of-

state witnesses.

Furthermore, while this is a Lexington case, the Court finds that holding the trial in the

Courthouse in Frankfort is appropriate. Pursuant to the Joint Criminal Local Rules for the

Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky, “Any criminal action or proceeding may, in the

discretion of the Court, be transferred from the jury division in which it is pending to any other

division for the convenience of the Court, the defendant, witnesses, or in the interest of justice.”

LCrR 18.2. Due to the caseload and number of District and Magistrate Judges in the Lexington
Case: 5:18-cr-00106-GFVT Doc #: 31 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 2 of 3 - Page ID#: 148

Courthouse, finding a Courtroom for proceedings is increasingly difficult, and any date

scheduled in Lexington would not have the flexibility of a date in Frankfort. The Court intends

to keep the Courtroom calendar open in the days leading up to this trial and the days following

trial to accommodate for unexpected changes. Scheduling the trial in Lexington would give the

parties no ability to begin before the scheduled date, extend the trial longer than three weeks, or

recess in the middle of trial for a variety of issues. Because of the reduced case load in

Frankfort, and because the undersigned is the only District Judge stationed in Frankfort, a

Frankfort trial would give the parties and the Court additional flexibility to resolve any

unanticipated and complex issues that may arise.

At the scheduling pretrial conference, the United States also made an oral motion for

extension of time to respond to Defendant’s pretrial defensive motions. [R. 30.] Defendants

previously requested a lengthy extension to file their motions, which was granted. [R. 29.]

Given the complexity of the issues in this matter, the Court also finds it appropriate to give the

United States additional time to respond.

Accordingly, and the Court being sufficiently advised, it is hereby ORDERED as


1. The United States’ Oral Motion for Extension of Time [R. 30] is GRANTED;

2. The United States shall have up to and including Monday, December 31, 2018,

by which to respond to the Defendants’ pretrial defensive motions;

3. The Defendants’ Jury Trial, currently set for November 13, 2018, is

CONTINUED to Tuesday, August 6, 2019, at the hour of 10:00 a.m. in Frankfort, Kentucky,

with counsel to arrive by 9:30 a.m.;

4. A final pretrial conference in this matter is hereby SCHEDULED for

Case: 5:18-cr-00106-GFVT Doc #: 31 Filed: 11/16/18 Page: 3 of 3 - Page ID#: 149

Wednesday, July 24, 2019, at the hour of 11:00 a.m. in Frankfort, Kentucky;

5. All motions for rearraignment shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days

before the scheduled trial date; and

6. The time between October 4, 2018, and August 6, 2019, is DECLARED

excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A)–(B). For the reasons set forth in the Court’s

previous Order [R. 29], the Court FINDS that the ends of justice served by the granting of such

continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial.

This the 16th day of November, 2018.

Похожие интересы