Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Order on Consent Motion for Exclusion of Time Under Speedy Trial Act (D. Md., Document 12-1)

Order on Consent Motion for Exclusion of Time Under Speedy Trial Act (D. Md., Document 12-1)

Summary

Order Regarding Consent Motion for Exclusion of Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, filed December 20, 2021 as Document 12-1 in Case 1:21-mj-03245-ADC, District of Maryland, United States v. Amar Shabazz, a case pending by way of Criminal Complaint. The Court extends the date by which the Indictment or Information must be returned to February 18, 2022, and excludes time under the Speedy Trial Act until that date. It states that the Government filed the motion with the consent of the Defendant and that the ends of justice served outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial. The order closes with the name of United States Magistrate Judge A. David Copperthite.

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

Cite this document

“Order on Consent Motion for Exclusion of Time Under Speedy Trial Act (D. Md., Document 12-1).” Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/source-documents/court-filing-d-md-no-1-21-mj-03245-dkt-12-1-d-md-617ed36804/, SHA-256 19e48fdcef7c7d65cbc22f7fe7786c7c1cbdc146874f0cb83f99a8f475c9b16d.

Full text

         Case 1:21-mj-03245-ADC Document 12-1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 1 of 2

                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
                                                         CASE NO. 21-MJ-3245-ADC
                  v.

 AMAR SHABAZZ,

                       Defendant


                   ORDER REGARDING CONSENT MOTION FOR
                EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

        This case is presently pending by way of Criminal Complaint. In the normal course, this

matter would have required that an indictment or information be filed within thirty (30) days of

the Defendant=s initial appearance, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(b). With the consent of the

Defendant, the Government has filed a motion to extend that time, thereby postponing exercising

the right to a preliminary hearing, as well as speedy presentment and speedy trial, and for the

reasons set forth therein additional time is required to adequately investigate and research issues

related to the indictment of the above captioned case.

        The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting an extension of the time within

which to return an indictment outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendant in a

speedy trial because, for the reasons set forth in the motion, failure to grant the extension is

likely to result in a miscarriage of justice if the matter is presented to the grand jury prior to

issues surrounding the investigation being fully investigated and researched. This Order is based

on a finding pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ' 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (ii), (iii), and (iv), that the ends of justice

served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a

speedy trial.

        IT IS ORDERED that the date by which the Indictment or Information must be returned

is extended to February 18, 2022, and that time is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act until


                                                   5
         Case 1:21-mj-03245-ADC Document 12-1 Filed 12/20/21 Page 2 of 2



that date.

        The Court finds that, pursuant Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and

(7)(B), based upon the Government’s motion with the consent of the Defendant, the interests of

justice will be served by continuing the speedy presentment and trial date beyond those required

under the statute and that the ends of justice served by such a delay in the trial of this case

outweigh the interests of the public and the Defendant in a speedy trial, in that:

        a.     the failure to grant this request in this proceeding would be likely to result in a

miscarriage of justice;

        b.     this case involves some complex issues and thus it would be unreasonable to

expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits

established by the Speedy Trial Act;

        c.     the requested exclusion of time would provide the Defendant and his counsel

sufficient time to conduct an investigation as well as review fully all of the discovery materials,

and will help ensure continuity of counsel;

        d.     the requested exclusion of time would allow the parties sufficient time to continue

the ongoing discussions regarding a pre-indictment disposition; and

        e.     the arrest of the Defendant on a Criminal Complaint at an earlier juncture than

anticipated by the Government, making return and filing of the indictment within the statutory

time limits unreasonable.

    SO ORDERED.



    ___________________________________                ___________________________________
    Date                                               A. David Copperthite
                                                       United States Magistrate Judge



                                                  6

File and source

File
12-att1.pdf
Size
109,181 bytes
SHA-256
19e48fdcef7c7d65cbc22f7fe7786c7c1cbdc146874f0cb83f99a8f475c9b16d
Our copy
12-att1.pdf
Original
No public link identified.
Back to top