USA v. JAMES

DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS
DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WAYNE JAMES,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
) Criminal No. 2015-42
)
)
)
)
)
ATTORNEYS:
Ronald Sharpe, United States Attorney
Delia L. Smith, AUSA
Amanda Vaughn, AUSA
Justin D. Weitz, AUSA
United States Attorney’s Office
St. Thomas, VI
For the United States of America,
Michael A. Joseph
Law Office of Michael A. Joseph
Christiansted, VI
For defendant Wayne James.
ORDER
GÓMEZ, J.
Before the Court is the application of Wayne James
(“James”) to waive his speedy trial. For the reasons stated
herein, the time to try this case is extended up to and
including December 31, 2016.
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
Case: 3:15-cr-00042-RAM-GAT Document #: 50 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 1 of 3

United States v. James
Criminal No. 2015-42
Order
Page 2
of justice for several reasons. First, an extension is
necessary to allow James an opportunity to adequately prepare
for trial. 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 engage in
ongoing plea negotiations and file substantive motions.
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
Case: 3:15-cr-00042-RAM-GAT Document #: 50 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 2 of 3

United States v. James
Criminal No. 2015-42
Order
Page 3
ORDERED that the time beginning from the date of this order
granting an extension through December 31, 2016, shall be
excluded in computing the time within which a trial must be
initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
S\
Curtis V. Gómez
District Judge
Case: 3:15-cr-00042-RAM-GAT Document #: 50 Filed: 10/05/16 Page 3 of 3