USA v. Levy Armstrong et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
v.
Nekima Levy Armstrong (1),
Chauntyll Louisa Allen (2),
William Scott Kelly (3),
Done Renaldo Lemon (4),
Jerome Deangelo Richardson (5),
Jamael Lydell Lundy (6),
Trahern Jeen Crews (7),
Georgia Ellyse Fort (8),
Ian Davis Austin (9),
Defendants.
No. 26-cr-25 (LMP/DLM)
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO
DESIGNATE CASE AS COMPLEX
OR TO EXTEND DISCOVERY
DISCLOSURE DATE
Before the Court is the government’s Motion to designate this case as complex
under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. (Doc. 131.) In its Motion, the government
asks the Court to designate this case as complex; to exclude at least 90 days from
computation under the Speedy Trial Act and to extend the deadline for disclosures required
by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a) by 30 days. (Id.) In the alternative to a
complex case designation, the government seeks an order permitting it an additional 30
days for its “initial production” of Rule 16 material, with 30 additional days for additional
materials not yet possessed by or accessible to the government. (Id.) All defendants oppose
the government’s Motion. (Docs. 135 (Response in Opposition by Ms. Levy Armstrong,
Ms. Allen, Mr. Kelly, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Lundy, Mr. Crews, and Mr. Austin), 138
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 1 of 7

(Response in Opposition by Mr. Lemon and Ms. Fort).) On the basis of the record before
it, the Court denies the government’s motion to the extent it seeks a so-called “complex
case” designation without prejudice. However, the Court agrees that an exclusion of 30 to
60 days for the government to make disclosures required by Rule 16(a), and likewise
amendments to related deadlines set forth in the Arraignment Oder (Doc. 130), serves the
ends of justice by permitting the government reasonable time for effective preparation of
this case.
BACKGROUND
Each defendant in this matter is charged by Indictment with one count of engaging
in a Conspiracy Against Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship, in violation of
18 U.S.C. § 241; and one count of aiding and abetting one another to Injure, Intimidate,
and Interfere with Exercise of Right of Religious Freedom at Place of Worship, in violation
of 18 U.S.C. §§ 2(a) and 248(a)(2), (b). (Doc. 39.) The charges stem from a widely-reported
incident at the Cities Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. (Id.) Broadly speaking, the Indictment
alleges that on January 18, 2026, Defendants entered the church during religious services
and engaged in acts violative of the statutes identified above. (Id.)
Defendants have all been arraigned, the latest appearing on February 17, 2026.
(Docs. 123, 124.) The Court issued an Arraignment Order that day, setting (among other
things) a February 24, 2026 Rule 16 disclosure deadline for the government, consistent
with District of Minnesota Local Rule 12.1(a)(2). (Doc. 130.)
Once the Arraignment Order was issued, the government filed its Motion seeking
to extend disclosure and other deadlines in this case. (Doc. 131.) In its Motion, the
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 2 of 7

government asserts that Local Rule 12.1’s presumptive 7-day disclosure deadline is
unworkable due in part to the volume, scope, and complexity of investigative materials—
specifically, the government identifies numerous reports, multiple video recordings, and
the need to employ “filter teams” as a part of cell phone data extraction. (Doc. 131 at 3-4.)
Additionally, says the government, the case may involve novel constitutional motion
practice based on forecasts of defense counsel. (Id. at 4-5.) Finally, the government
estimates that “approximately 40 individuals were participants in the charged conspiracy,”
and that 300 congregants and church staff witnessed the offense conduct. (Id. at 4.)
Defendants, for their part, oppose the government’s request for complex-case
designation. Mr. Lemon and Ms. Fort assert the government’s Motion “is driven by its need
for relief from its own prosecutorial choices”; that is, that the government’s haste in
charging this matter before securing and reviewing evidence is a problem of its own
making. (Doc. 138.) The remaining Defendants focus their opposition on the fact that
nothing distinguishes this case from many others prosecuted in this district: it admittedly
involves multiple defendants, but a single hour of offense conduct occurring in one place
on one day. (Doc. 135.) Voluminous discovery is common in federal criminal practice, say
these defendants, and the time necessary to address any complex or novel legal issues is
already accounted for by the Speedy Trial Act’s exclusion of time while pretrial motions
are pending. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (H).
ANALYSIS
As a general matter, the Speedy Trial Act requires that a defendant be tried within
70 days of indictment or initial appearance. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1); Zedner v. United
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 3 of 7

States, 547 U.S. 489, 497 (2006). That said, “the Act recognizes that criminal cases vary
widely and that there are valid reasons for greater delay in particular cases.” Zedner, 547
U.S. at 497. One of those reasons is when the case “so unusual or so complex, due to the
number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of
fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation” within the default
provisions of the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(ii). This is often
referred to as a “complex case” designation, resulting in exclusion of time from the Act
and an expansion of typical case deadlines.
Here, the government appears to rely on each enumerated basis of §
3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) to support a complex case designation. It claims that the number of
defendants, already large, could increase. It claims that discovery will be voluminous and
broad due to the media involved and the number of witnesses. And it contends that there is
likely to be novel and robust motion practice.
The Court does not disagree with the government entirely that this case has the
potential to become unwieldy when tested by the Speedy Trial Act. But it would be an
abuse of discretion to designate a case complex now based on the potential of complexity.
As it stands, the case involves nine defendants, all charged with the same offenses arising
out of the same discrete course of conduct. That is not particularly complex. As for motion
practice, the government has a point that Defendants have forecast novel and, possibly,
complex motion practice—a point driven home by the robust motion practice some
defendants have already engaged in before even having an Arraignment Order. (See, e.g.,
Docs. 97 (Motion to Dismiss Indictment), 125 (Joint Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 4 of 7

Proceedings).) But as some defendants rightly indicate, the Speedy Trial Act already
accounts for the exclusion of time while motions are pending and under advisement. 18
U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(D) & (H).
Where the Court finds the government’s position well taken is as it relates to the
volume and scope of discovery. Based on the government’s proffer, discovery will include
thousands of pages of reports, and a significant amount of electronic media. It will also
include information derived from searches of electronic devices, some of which will need
to be reviewed by a filter team first. It is in the interest of justice to provide additional time
for those disclosures and, just as importantly, to allow defendants time to review and
analyze the government’s discovery in advance of pretrial motion practice. Accord 18
U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(iv). As such, the Court grants the government’s request to
continue its deadline for Rule 16 disclosures for 30 days. To the extent the government
requests that the Court set initial and final disclosure deadlines, that will not be done. The
government has a continuing duty to disclose materials, such that any disclosures not made
by the government’s new deadline must nonetheless be made as soon as practicable. Fed.
R. Crim. P. 16(c).
Finally, the parties appear to disagree on whether the government’s disclosures
should be made on a rolling basis. While this is more appropriately considered in a
discovery conference, see Fed. R. Crim. P. 16.1, the Court comments that rolling discovery
appears consistent with its interpretation of the government’s discovery obligations.
Accordingly, based on the above, as well as all the files, records, and proceedigns
herein, IT IS ORDERED that:
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 5 of 7

1. The Government must make all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(a) by March 26, 2026. D. Minn. LR 12.1(a)(1). To avoid the need
for a recess of the Motions Hearing, the Government is requested to make all
disclosures which will be required by Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 and 12(h) by March
26, 2026.
2. Defendant must make all disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal
Procedure 16(b) by April 2, 2026. D. Minn. LR 12.1(a)(2).
3. The parties must disclose the identity of any expert witness and make all expert
disclosures required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 no later than 28
days before trial. The parties must disclose the identity of any expert who will
testify in rebuttal of an expert witness and make all disclosures as to such expert
required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 no later than 14 days before
trial. Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(1)(G).
4. Defendant’s pretrial motions must be filed and served consistent with Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure 12(b) and 47 and Local Rule 12.1(c) on or before
April 9, 2026.
5. Counsel must electronically file a letter on or before April 9, 2026,
if no motions will be filed and there is no need for hearing.
6. All responses to motions, along with a Notice of Intent to Call Witnesses, must
be filed by April 23, 2026, in accordance with Local Rule 12.1(c)(3)(A).
7. Any Responsive Notice of Intent to Call Witnesses must be filed by April 27,
2026, in accordance with Local Rule 12.1(c)(3)(B).
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 6 of 7

8. A motions hearing will be held pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure
12(b) and (c) if:
a. The United States makes timely disclosures and the Defendant
identifies in the motions particularized matters for which an
evidentiary hearing is necessary; or
b. Oral argument is requested by either party in its motion, objection or
response pleadings.
9. If required, a motions hearing will be held before Magistrate Judge Douglas L.
Micko on a date and time to be determined, in Courtroom 6B, Warren E. Burger
Federal Building and U.S. Courthouse, 316 North Robert Street, Saint Paul,
Minnesota 55101.
10. The parties will receive the remaining dates relating to trial by separate order.
11. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), the Court finds that the ends of justice
served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interest of the
public and Defendant in a speedy trial. This finding is based on all of the files
and proceedings herein, including the facts set forth in the motion and the
supporting documents. Accordingly, the period of time from March 10, 2026,
the prior motions deadline, to April 9, 2026, the new motions deadline, shall
be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act computations in this case.
DATED: February 23, 2026 s/Douglas L. Micko
DOUGLAS L. MICKO
United States Magistrate Judge
CASE 0:26-cr-00025-LMP-DLM Doc. 140 Filed 02/23/26 Page 7 of 7