Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Source documents Motion to Clarify Record — United States v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. ELH-21-470 (Dkt. 66, D. Md.)

Motion to Clarify Record — United States v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. ELH-21-470 (Dkt. 66, D. Md.)

Summary

Nichelle Henson, the defendant in United States v. Nichelle Henson, Criminal No. ELH-21-470 in the District of Maryland, filed a motion asking the court to clarify the record on Henson's request for a trial date. The motion says the court's letter to government counsel stated that Henson "requested the 2-week trial be scheduled August 28, 2023 instead of August 21, 2023," but that Henson in fact asked for a date after August 28, 2023. It says Henson needs more time to prepare, to subpoena a number of witnesses and to review the Government's evidence, and that the one-week extension the court granted is not enough. The motion cites Ninth, Fifth and Eighth Circuit decisions on continuances and asks for a trial date after August 28, 2023. It is signed by Nichelle Henson.

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

Full text

                             UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA                  )
                                           )
                  V.                       )      Criminal No. ELH-21-470
                                           )
 NICHELLE HENSON                           )
                                           )




                              Motion to Clarify Record

The Defendant, Nichelle Henson, hereby moves this Court to clarify the record for the
Letter to Government Counsel By CM/ECF and to the Defendant email regarding
Defendant's request for a trial date.

In the Court's letter to the Government, the Court stated that the Defendant "requested
the 2-week trial be scheduled August 28, 2023 instead of August 21, 2023." This
statement is accurate, but it does not fully reflect the Defendant's request.

In fact, the Defendant requested that the trial be scheduled for a date after August 28,
2023. The Defendant made this request because he needed more time to prepare for
trial. The Defendant has a complex case, and he has a number of witnesses who need
to be subpoenaed. The Defendant also needs to have time to review the Government's
evidence.

The Court granted the Defendant's request for a one-week extension, but the Defendant
still needs more time. The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant his
request for a trial date after August 28, 2023.

The Defendant's request is supported by the following case law:

   x   In United States v. Smith, 560 F.2d 1270 (9th Cir. 1977), the Ninth Circuit held
       that a district court has the discretion to grant a continuance to a defendant who
       needs more time to prepare for trial.
   x   In United States v. Jones, 689 F.2d 1074 (5th Cir. 1982), the Fifth Circuit held
       that a district court's denial of a continuance without a hearing is reversible error.
   x   In United States v. Williams, 725 F.2d 1182 (8th Cir. 1984), the Eighth Circuit
       held that a district court's denial of a continuance is reversible error if the
       defendant can show that he was prejudiced by the denial.

The Defendant respectfully requests that the Court grant his motion to clarify the record
and to grant his request for a trial date after August 28, 2023.

Respectfully submitted,

Nichelle Henson

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mdd.504329.66.0.pdf
Size
80,124 bytes
SHA-256
a18d748282aa7510b03856777a03c8c50728d80a0746d371e63bdf729e7a338c
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mdd.504329.66.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
Back to top