Second Unopposed Motion to Exclude Time from the Requirements of the Speedy Trial Act — United States v. Hallford (Dkt. 94, D. Colo.)

Summary

A Second Unopposed Motion to Exclude Time from the Requirements of the Speedy Trial Act in United States of America v. Carie L. Hallford, Criminal Case No. 24-cr-113-NYM, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado, filed March 6, 2025. Through defense counsel Robert Charles Melihercik, the defendant asks the Court to exclude 180 days from the Speedy Trial Act computations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The motion states that Assistant U.S. Attorneys Tim Neff and Craig Fansler do not oppose the request. It recounts that she made her initial appearance on April 15, 2024 and that an earlier motion to exclude time and for complex case designation (ECF No. 36) stopped the clock.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW         Document 94    filed 03/06/25   USDC Colorado        pg 1
                                          of 5




                         IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Criminal Case No. 24-cr-113-NYM

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

       Plaintiff,

v.

2. CARIE L. HALLFORD,

       Defendant.


 SECOND UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME FROM THE REQUIREMENTS
                   OF THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT


       Ms. Carie Hallford, through undersigned defense counsel, Robert Charles

Melihercik, Melihercik Law LLC, respectfully makes this second unopposed motion

requesting this Honorable Court for an Order excluding 180 days from the Speedy Trial

Act computations per 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). In support of this request, Ms. Hallford

states the following:

                    Conferral and Current Speedy Trial Clock Calculations

1.     On March 5, 2025, defense counsel conferred with Assistant U.S. Attorneys Tim

Neff and Craig Fansler regarding this motion. They stated that the government does not

oppose this request.

2.     Ms. Hallford made her initial appearance on April 15, 2024. On May 24, 2024,

defense counsel filed an Unopposed Motion to Exclude Time, For Complex Case

Designation, and For Status Conference. ECF No. 36. That motion stopped the clock and



                                             1

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW         Document 94      filed 03/06/25    USDC Colorado        pg 2
                                          of 5




started a period of excludable time originally set to expire on October 22, 2024. ECF No.

37; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D), (H). The Court, along with other findings, found the instant

case to be “complex” within the meaning of the statute and extended the 70-day clock.

ECF No. 37.

3.      On September 12, 2024, Ms. Hallford filed a notice of disposition. ECF No. 41. On

October 24, 2024, the Court conditionally accepted the plea but went on to ultimately reject

the proposed plea on February 24, 2025. ECF Nos. 48 and 80. On March 4, 2025, Ms.

Hallford withdrew her plea of guilty, thereby, deeming her indicted with respect to all

charges. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(i); ECF No. 86.

4.      Accordingly, the parties believe that 39 of 70 days have elapsed and the current 70-

day “trial clock” expires on April 4, 2025.

                                Applicable Legal Standards

5.      18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) authorizes the Court to exclude time from the limitations

set forth in the Speedy Trial act where the ends of justice served by the delay outweigh the

interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

6.      Statutory factors for the Court to consider include whether failing to grant the motion

would “result in a miscarriage of justice” or “deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney

for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation.” 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and (iv). The complexity of the case is another factor to be considered.

Id. at (B)(ii).

7.      For further assistance in evaluating the merits of these motions, Courts often

seek guidance from United States v. West, where the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals



                                               2

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW         Document 94        filed 03/06/25   USDC Colorado       pg 3
                                          of 5




applied four factors in deciding whether a denial of a continuance had been arbitrary or

unreasonable. United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1987). That decision

considered: (1) the diligence of the requesting party, (2) the usefulness of the

continuance, (3) the inconvenience to the opposing party and the Court, and (4) the

prejudice if the request is denied. West, 828 F.2d at 1470. No single factor is

determinative, and the weight given to any one factor may vary. Id.

8.     When ruling on this motion “the preferred practice is for the district court to make its

findings on the record at the time the continuance is granted.” U.S. v. Toombs, 574 F.3d

1262, 1269 (10th Cir. 2009). Further, “[a] record consisting of only short, conclusory

statements lacking in detail is insufficient.” Id. at 1271.

                                           Argument

9.     Defense counsel, unopposed by the government, believes the ends of justice that

would be served by granting this motion outweigh the best interests of the public and Ms.

Hallford in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

10.    The case remains complex due to a variety of factors. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

The breadth of the factual allegations, interconnected with the state prosecution, as well as

the amount of discovery (e.g., some 68,000 pages of reports, hours of surveillance video,

body camera footage, etc.) contribute to the density of the case.

11.    Up to this point, defense counsel has spent the vast majority of its time reviewing

discovery, negotiating, conducting client meetings, and preparing plea and sentencing-

related materials. As far back as early September of 2024, both sides believed the case

had resolved. Therefore, it has been many months since counsel examined the various



                                                3

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW        Document 94      filed 03/06/25    USDC Colorado          pg 4
                                         of 5




trial-related issues. Moreover, certain parts of discovery will need to be re-reviewed in

preparation for trial. Both parties must now prepare pre-trial motions, including navigating

potential impacts of from the co-defendant’s decision to plead guilty. Defense counsel will

continue to diligently represent Ms. Hallford but fears that denying this motion would be to

deny the time reasonably necessary for effective pre-trial and trial preparations. 18 U.S.C.

§ 1361(h)(7)(B)(iv).

12.    Turning to the guidance from West, both parties have confidence that the requested

amount of time would be extremely useful in allowing for diligent pre-trial preparations

without excessively inconveniencing the potential witnesses or the Court. West, 828 F.2d

at 1470. Without the time requested to adequately prepare its case, defense counsel

believes Ms. Hallford, and the government for that matter, may be prejudiced by a

miscarriage of justice. Id. and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).

                                        Conclusion

13.    Based on the arguments supra and her belief that the ends of justice would best be

served by granting this motion, Ms. Hallford respectfully requests that 180 days be

excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculation. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

                                           Respectfully submitted,



Dated: March 6, 2025                       s/Robert Charles Melihercik
                                           Robert Charles Melihercik
                                           Melihercik Law LLC
                                           7765 Wadsworth Blvd., #746327
                                           Arvada, CO, 80006
                                           Phone: 720-7078-2852
                                           Email: chaz@meliherciklaw.com
                                           Attorney for Defendant


                                              4

Case No. 1:24-cr-00113-NYW       Document 94      filed 03/06/25    USDC Colorado       pg 5
                                        of 5




                              CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

         I hereby certify on March 6, 2025, I electronically filed the foregoing with the
Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF filing system, which will send notification of such
filing to all attorneys of record.

                                                 s/ Robert Charles Melihercik
                                                 Robert Charles Melihercik




                                             5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.cod.233033.94.0.pdf

Size

52,863 bytes

SHA-256

8f8863129eca799abc94ba244fffd5c4aad85dd9e0d03d8aee14ba3bd9af0f73

Our copy

gov.uscourts.cod.233033.94.0.pdf

Original

archive.org