Order on Motion to Continue Trial — United States v. Nathan Reardon, No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW (Dkt. 128, D. Me.)
Summary
U.S. District Judge Lance E. Walker of the District of Maine denied Nathan Reardon's motion for a two-month continuance of the trial set to begin on July 11, 2022, in an order filed 06/30/22. The defense said counsel had run out of time to prepare given the large volume of material to review, and the government opposed the motion. The order says a large volume of materials does not by itself require a continuance without a specific explanation of why particular materials justify more time, and Reardon gave none. It notes that more than two weeks had passed since the government provided additional materials, and that the request contradicts Reardon's earlier request, filed four weeks before, for a trial date certain in July. The motion, ECF No. 126, is denied.
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
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 128 Filed 06/30/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
)
v. )
)
NATHAN REARDON, ) No. 1:21-cr-00061-LEW
)
Defendant. )
ORDER ON MOTION TO CONTINUE TRIAL
Defendant, Nathan Reardon, has requested a two-month continuance of his trial,
currently slated to begin on July 11, 2022. Defendant’s chief concern is that he and his
attorney have run out of time to properly prepare for trial in light of the large volume of
material that counsel must review before trial. The government opposes Defendant’s
motion.
Though a number of factors guide a court’s calculus regarding whether to continue
a trial, the decision ultimately turns on whether “substantial prejudice” will likely result if
the trial proceeds as scheduled. United States v. Delgado-Marrero, 744 F.3d 167, 196 (1st
Cir. 2014) (internal quotations omitted). “Ensuring that counsel possess adequate time to
prepare for trial is a valid reason to continue an action.” United States v. Agosto-Pacheco,
432 F. Supp. 3d 13, 23 (D.P.R. 2019). But a large volume of materials does not itself
necessitate a continuance absent some “specific explanation . . . as to why those particular
materials justif[y] additional time.” United States v. Williams, 630 F.3d 44, 48 (1st Cir.
2010).
Case 1:21-cr-00061-LEW Document 128 Filed 06/30/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:
<pageID>
Here, Defendant has provided no such specific explanation, instead simply
cataloguing the materials at issue in this case. What’s more, over two weeks have elapsed
since the government provided defense counsel with additional materials for trial, which
the government describes as something short of voluminous, providing ample time for
counsel to review the documents and to understand their significance for trial. Defendant’s
request for a continuance is perplexing insofar as it directly contradicts his earlier request—
filed only four weeks ago—that I schedule his case for trial for a date certain in July. In
any event, I know defense counsel to be a competent attorney and am confident in his
ability to be prepared for trial in July as he requested.
Defendant’s Motion to Continue Trial (ECF No. 126) is therefore DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2022.
/s/ Lance E. Walker
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
File and source
- File
- 128-order-on-motion-to-continue-trial.pdf
- Size
- 211,644 bytes
- SHA-256
- 19b269fc826fb72342c434fd2c28217c76cae6ef3ae7cda2b46373645a8ca1e8
- Original
- No public link identified.