U.S. v. RAMOS

Criminal No. 2017-18.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. BENJAMIN TORRES RAMOS, Defendant.

United States District Court, D. Virgin Islands, Division of St. Thomas and St. John.


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Benjamin Torres Ramos, Defendant, represented by Carl R. Williams , Smith, Williams,PLLC, Gabriel J. Villegas , Federal Public Defender & Omodare B. Jupiter , OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by Joycelyn Hewlett , U.S. Attorney's Office & Sigrid Tejo-Sprotte , United State Attorney's Office.


ORDER

CURTIS V. GÓMEZ, District Judge.

Before the Court is the application of Benjamin Torres Ramos ("Ramos") to waive his speedy trial. For the reasons stated herein, the time to try this case is extended up to and including June 23, 2017.

While the Speedy Trial Act requires that a defendant be tried within seventy days of indictment, the Court specifically finds that extending this period would be in the best interest of justice for several reasons. First, an extension is necessary to allow Ramos's new counsel time to familiarize himself with the matter. Second, the defendant made this request with the advice and consent of counsel. Third, without an extension, the parties would be denied reasonable time necessary to explore plea options and prepare for trial.

Consistent with these concerns, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has recognized that "whether or not a case is `unusual' or `complex,' an ends of justice continuance may in appropriate circumstances be granted." United States v. Fields, 39 F.3d 439, 444 (3d Cir. 1994)(citing United States v. Dota, 33 F.3d 1179(9th Cir. 1994)("An ends of justice continuance may be justified on grounds that one side needs more time to prepare for trial . . . even though a case is not complex")); see also United States v. Brooks, 697 F.2d 517, 522 (3d Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1071(1983)(no abuse of discretion where district court found that multiple count, multiple defendant "case was complex and required additional time for adequate preparation."); United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866, 883 (3d Cir. 1992)("district court did not abuse its discretion [by delaying trial] to give counsel . . . opportunity to . . . decid[e] upon and prepar[e] an appropriate defense.").

The premises considered; it is hereby

ORDERED that the time beginning from the date of this order granting an extension through June 23, 2017, shall be excluded in computing the time within which a trial must be initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases