United States of America v. Hudson et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
v. 	) 	Case No. CR-16-119-R
)
CHAD NATHAN HUDSON, 	)
a/k/a CP, 	)
a/k/a Pimp, 	)
a/k/a Big Homie, 	)
JASMINE RENEE EDWARDS, 	)
a/k/a Jasmine Edwards, 	)
TYRON LANCE BAKER, 	)
a/k/a Tyrone Lance Baker, 	)
RANDY LYNN NICHOLS, 	)
RICHARD JOSEPH COKER, 	)
a/k/a Lucky, 	)
CHRISTOPHER PAUL BROWN, 	)
a/k/a CB, 	)
a/k/a Breezy, 	)
RICHARD LEE POTTS, 	)
a/k/a Pothead, 	)
DAVID DEAN CAGLE, 	)
GARY HOLDEN SCHNEIDER, 	)
a/k/a Red Fein, 	)
a/k/a Red Fang, 	)
TENESIA DIANE RODRIGUEZ, 	)
a/k/a Tenesia Rosenke, 	)
a/k/a Teneshia Diane Dickerson, 	)
a/k/a Damian Rosenke, 	)
a/k/a Tenesia D. Damian, 	)
a/k/a T, 	)
AISHA BLISS DONALDSON, 	)
RICKY LYNN WOLFE, 	)
DEVON ALAN HERRON, 	)
ZANE P. YARGEE, 	)
DARYL LLOYD IVEY, 	)
a/k/a Steve-O, 	)
DEREK THOMAS SOETEN, 	)
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 1 of 6

a/k/a D-Lo, 	)
NIKE DEANDRE DAVIS, 	)
a/k/a Lavish, 	)
MARGIE LEE BARNHILL, 	)
AMANDA HEATHER HOLLAND, 	)
JEREMY ANTOWAINE TAYLOR, 	)
a/k/a JT, 	)
EYNER MORA ESPARZA, 	)
ROBHINSON RENE GARCIA AGUIRRE, 	)
JEFFREY LEE WHITMIRE, 	)
a/k/a J Dub, 	)
SAVANNAH DAWN GUTHERY, 	)
a/k/a Missy, 	)
MELISSA DAWN COOPER, 	)
a/k/a MC, 	)
AMANDA DONNA LOUISE BENTON, 	)
a/k/a Mandy Krouse, 	)
CIARA RAIN DICKERSON, 	)
a/k/a Ciara Coddington, 	and 	)
TAKELIA CHAKE TROUPE, 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
Defendant Zane Yargee filed a Second Motion to Extend Time to File Motions and
Continuing Date for Jury Trial (Doc. No. 682). The motion is joined by all remaining
defendants, except Daryl Lloyd Ivey, Devon Herron, and Melissa Dawn Cooper. 	The
Court has contacted counsel for Defendant Herron who notes he has no objection to the
request. Defendant Cooper has not been arrested and thus is unaffected by this motion.
Defendant Ivey filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion. (Doc. No. 692). The motion
is not opposed by the Government.
This case originated on June 22, 2016, when the grand jury returned an indictment
charging four defendants with seven counts. Through the filing of complaints, superseding
and second superseding indictments, the case grew to a total of twenty-eight defendants
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 2 of 6

and one hundred and fourteen counts. As of this date, sixteen of the twenty-eight
defendants have entered pleas of guilty either to a superseding information or to charges
for which they were indicted. On October 12, 2016, in light of the number of the
Defendants and the number of counts alleged by the United States as of that date, the Court
declared the case to be complex and granted the motion of Defendant Yargee to extend the
time for the filing of motions and continued the matter to the Court’s April trial docket.
(Doc. No. 411). The Court noted the enormous volume of discovery produced and yet-to-
be produced by the United States, as well as the number of counts and the complex
conspiracy alleged to exist amongst certain of the Defendants, concluding that an “end-of-
justice” continuance was warranted under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
On December 23, 2016, the United States filed a Motion to Continue the trial from
the Court’s April 2016 docket to the September 2017 docket. (Doc. No. 526). The Court
granted the motion on January 1, 2017. (Doc. No. 547). Mr. Ivey objected to the request,
although he did not file a formal opposition thereto. Id. The Court noted the voluminous
discovery and the changing landscape of the claim by virtue of superseding indictments
and the potential for additional superseding indictments. On January 18, 2017, the grand
jury returned a Second Superseding Indictment. (Doc. No. 601). Thereafter the instant
motion and objection were filed.
As designed and written, the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq.,
serves 	two 	important 	interests: 	protecting 	a 	criminal 	defendant's
constitutional right to a speedy trial and serving the public interest in prompt
criminal proceedings. United States v. Thompson, 524 F.3d 1126, 1131 (10th
Cir.2008). “The Act generally requires a federal criminal trial to begin within
seventy days from the filing of an information or indictment, or from the date
of the defendant's initial appearance, whichever occurs later.” United States
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 3 of 6

v. Williams, 511 F.3d 1044, 1047 (10th Cir.2007) (citing 18 U.S.C. §
3161(c)(1)). Because “criminal cases vary widely and ... there are valid
reasons for greater delay in particular cases,” the Act offers “flexibility” by
including “a long and detailed list of periods of delay that are excluded in
computing the time within which trial must start.” Zedner v. United States,
547 U.S. 489, 497, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 164 L.Ed.2d 749 (2006).
United States v. Martino, 564 F. Supp. 2d 1268, 1271 (D. Kan. 2008). The Act treats as
excludable delays “attributable to one defendants . . . [as] attributable to all co-defendants.”
United States v. Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d 902, 915 (10 th Cir. 1989). As such, §
3161(h)(7) excludes “[a] reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial
with a codefendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance
has been granted.” The basis for this exclusion is the efficient use of resources, both of the
prosecution and the judicial system. In his objection defendant Ivey merely notes he has
objected to continuances and wishes to go to trial as soon as possible.
The Court considers three factors in assessing whether delay occasioned by a co-
defendant is reasonable: (1) whether Defendant is free on bond, (2) whether Defendant
zealously pursued a speedy trial, and (3) whether the circumstances further the purpose
behind the exclusion to “accommodate the efficient use of prosecutorial and judicial
resources in trying multiple defendants in a single trial.” United States v. Olivo, 69 F.3d
1057, 1061-62 (10 th Cir. 1995). Although Defendant is not on bond, he was being detained
in the Oklahoma County Detention Center when he was arraigned in this Court, apparently
on what appear to be charges related to this case, which have since been dismissed.
Defendant has repeatedly pursued a speedy trial, objecting to each request for continuance,
although he has not filed a motion for severance. Finally, the circumstances herein make a
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 4 of 6

single trial of the Defendants the most efficient use of both prosecution and judicial
resources. In light of the allegations of conspiracy allegations, the Court concludes it is
likely the United States will rely on a single group of witnesses. Presumably, many of those
witnesses 	will 	have 	been 	co-defendants 	who 	have 	agreed 	to 	cooperate 	with 	the
Government. Furthermore, it does not appear that the United States has not been diligent
in providing discovery to the Defendants. The Court finds that the Defendants’ request for
continuances will not result in unreasonable delay as to warrant denial of the instant
motion.
Furthermore, the Speedy Trial Act grants the Court flexibility by ends-of-justice
continuances. The Court has reconsidered the factors set forth in § 3161(h(8)(A) and
concludes that any delay resulting from additional continuance of this matter serves the
sends of justice, and that continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and
Defendant Ivey, and the moving Defendants, in a speedy trial. The United States has
informed Defendants that discovery will be forthcoming that exceeds 100 Gigabytes of
phone data. Additionally, there will be data from pole cams and aerial surveillance videos.
This is in addition to police reports, recorded interviews and witness statements. The
United States informed Defendants that more than 55,000 additional pages of discovery
will be released shortly. Furthermore, rough transcripts of Title III recordings have just
become available to Defendants. The release of additional discovery makes the filing of
motions under the current timeline difficult. The Court anticipates a substantial motion
practice by counsel once they have had an opportunity to review the Government’s
discovery. The need for the additional time is self-evident if defense counsel are to render
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 5 of 6

the type of representation expected, and the Court concludes the additional time requested
is excludable time. To conclude the time was not excludable would place Defendants in
the untenable position of having to file motions without full knowledge of the evidence
against possessed by the United States. The Court finds the need for the proper preparation
of the diverse defenses in this complex case outweighs the public or individual right to a
speedy trial all as set forth in 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(i-iv). Thus, the granting of this
motion would be in the interests of substantial justice and is fully appropriate in the
circumstances.
Accordingly, the trial settings for September 11, 2017, are hereby stricken, as are
the deadlines for filing motions under the current scheduling Order. Trial in this action
shall commence on February 12, 2018. 	Counsel for the Government and the defendants
will confer and present a new agreed proposed scheduling Order for this Court’s review
within 10 days consistent with this trial setting.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 21 st day of February 2017.
Case 5:16-cr-00119-R Document 693 Filed 02/21/17 Page 6 of 6