Objections to Scheduling Order — United States v. Shaquandra Woods, No. CR422-016-1 (Dkt. 284, S.D. Ga.)
Summary
In this filing dated November 7, 2023 in United States v. Shaquandra Woods, CR422-016-1 (S.D. Ga., Savannah Division), counsel Kimberly L. Copeland objects for Woods to the Court's scheduling order of November 3, 2023 (Doc. 283), which granted the government's motion to begin jury selection on November 27, 2023. That date is one day earlier than the November 28 date set when the Court denied Woods' second continuance motion but granted 30 more days to prepare. The objections argue that, given the complexity of the case and the volume of discovery, the one day encroaches on preparation time, and that insisting on expeditiousness can violate the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. They note the government received several delays and prior counsel was given 90 days in an earlier request. Woods asks the Court to rescind the order and allow an additional 30 days.
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
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
_______________
SAVANNAH DIVISION
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
)
-V- ) CR422-016-1
)
SHAQUANDRA WOODS, )
)
Defendant. )
______________________________________)
OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER
NOW COMES, Shaquandra Woods, [hereinafter, “Woods”] by and through her
undersigned counsel and files her objections to the Court’s scheduling order of November 3, 2023,
(Doc. 283); and shows the Court the following:
1. On October 16, 2023, Woods filed her second motion for a continuance (Doc. 267),
opposed by the government (Doc. 269), seeking 60 days prior to the trial date so that she could
adequately prepare her defense;
2. On October 18, 2023, the Court denied Woods’ motion for continuance (Doc. 273);
however, the Court granted her an additional 30 days to prepare for trial, with jury selection to
begin on November 28, 2023;
3. Thereafter, on October 23, 2023, the government filed a motion to begin trial on
November 27, 2023, (Doc. 278) opposed by Woods (Doc. 279);
4. On November 3, 2023, the Court granted the government’s motion and amended the
scheduling order setting the jury selection to begin on November 27, 2023. (Doc. 283).
5. Although, the new schedule requires a start date only 1 day earlier, in light of Woods’
initial request, the one day encroaches upon Woods’ preparation time; and
6. Given the complexities of the case and volume of discovery and documentary evidence,
one day can make a difference between whether there is effective assistance of counsel, due process of
law and a fundamentally fair proceeding.
ARGUMENT
An unreasonable and arbitrary insistence upon expeditiousness in face of a justifiable request for delay
violates a defendant’s right to the 6th Amendment Right to the Effective Assistance of Counsel. Unger v.
Sarafite, 376 U.S. 575, 589, 874 S.Ct. 841, 849, 11 L.Ed.2d 921 (1964); Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1,11-12,
103 S.Ct. 1610, 1612, 75 L.Ed.2d 610, (1983). In Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S. 444, 446, 60 S.Ct. 321, 322, 84
L.Ed. 377 (1940) the Court held that “ . . . . where a court, in its haste, denied compelling unopposed
motions for continuance and in so doing eviscerated one of the Sixth Amendment's essential safeguards. As a
result, justice has not been done.” United States v. Verderame, 51 F.3d 249, 252 (11th Cir. 1995). Likewise,
in adhering to the Court’s schedule, Woods will be denied the effective assistance of counsel. The requested
additional 30 days will make all the difference from a due process of law point of view. The right to counsel
afforded under the Sixth Amendment means the effective assistance of counsel and effective assistance requires
time for preparation. Cf. Powell v. State of Alabama, 1932, 287 U.S. 45, 71, 53 S.Ct. 55, 77 L.Ed. 158; Roberts
v. United States,325 F.2d 290(5 Cir.1963); see also, Riggio v. Sec'y, Dep't of Corr., 704 F. Supp. 2d 1244, 1250
(M.D. Fla. 2010); Hintz v. Beto, 379 F.2d 937, 941 (5th Cir. 1967) .
Under certain circumstances, denial of a motion for continuance of trial may vitiate the effect of” the
Sixth Amendment's right to counsel to such an extent that it results in a due process violation. 878 United
States v. Valladares, 544 F.3d 1257, 1262 (11th Cir.2008); United States v. Maggert, 428 F. App'x 874, 877–
78 (11th Cir. 2011). Woods has outlined to the Court her need for additional time to prepare. (Doc.267). A
reviewing court will disturb a trial court’s ruling on a motion for continuance if there has been an abuse of
2
discretion. United States v. Darby, 744 F.2d 1508, 1521 (11th Cir.1984). This issue must be decided in light
of the circumstances presented, focusing upon the reasons for the continuance offered to the trial court when
the request is denied. United States v. Uptain, 531 F.2d 1281, 1286 (5th Cir.1976).1 United States v. Garmany,
762 F.2d 929, 936 (11th Cir. 1985). Thus, Woods has presented adequate reasons and circumstances of her
need for the original request of 60 days. The field is not level. The government has been the recipient of several
delays, e.g. superseding indictments and other delays. Moreover, prior counsel was given 90 days in an earlier
request for a continuance.
CONCLUSION
The trial court should provide Woods with an additional 30 days as she originally requested. The failure
to do so is an abuse of discretion. Woods should be given adequate time to prepare her defense, meet with her
counsel, review the voluminous discovery and other documents, decide if she needs an expert or other witnesses,
prepare whatever evidence she may need, or other preparations. E.g. decide whether to testify or not. Some of
these decisions can only be made after thorough review of the evidence.
Wherefore, the Court is requested to rescind the most recent scheduling order and issue a new order
giving Woods an additional 30 days to prepare her defense and for such other and further relief as the Court
deems just and proper.
This 7th day of November 2023.
Respectfully Submitted,
Kimberly L. Copeland & Assoc., LLC.
By: Kimberly L. Copeland
Ga. Bar #186783
Attorney For Woods
256 N. Brunswick Street
Jesup, Georgia, 31456-4380
(912) 530-7317
(912) 530-7318 (Fax)
Kim12cope@aol.com
1
The Eleventh Circuit adopted as precedent the cases from the Fifth Circuit in Bonner v. City of Prichard,
Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1213 (11th Cir. 1981).
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned attorney does hereby certify that she has this day served a true and
correct copy of the foregoing OBJECTIONS TO SCHEDULING ORDER in accordance
with the notice of electronic filing ("NEF") which was generated as a result of electronic
filing in this Court.
This 7th day of November 2023.
/S/Kimberly L. Copeland________________
KIMBERLY L. COPELAND
4
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.gasd.86281.284.0.pdf
- Size
- 181,834 bytes
- SHA-256
- 6450c9b1bd1cb0c10350e1e4bbb74d7f9a830e171674f449a6de49c2b80eae0e
- Original
- archive.org