USA v. Harris et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
WESTON THORPE HARRIS, KENNETH
ALAN WILLIAMS, and RAYMOND
EDWARD BORI,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER RE:
MOTION TO CONTINUE
Case No. 2:25-cr-214 CW
Judge Clark Waddoups
This matter is before the court on an opposed Motion to Continue Trial filed by the United
States. Also pending before the court is a Motion for a James Hearing (ECF No. 38). On October
23, 2025, the court entered an order requesting briefing related to the James motion, and stated a
Status Conference would be set “to determine if a James hearing is needed.” Order Req’t Briefing,
at 2 (ECF No. 41).
“A motion that ‘requires a hearing’ tolls the speedy-trial clock from the filing of the motion
until the conclusion of the hearing.” 	United States v. Mulgado-Patida, 402 F. App’x 367, 373
(10th Cir. 2010) (quoting Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 329 (1986)). 	The Tenth
Circuit has held that “[a] motion to determine the applicability of the coconspirator [hearsay]
exception is such a motion.” 	Id. 	In particular, “‘a district court can only admit coconspirator
statements if it holds a James hearing or conditions admission on forthcoming proof of a predicate
conspiracy through trial testimony or other evidence,’” and the Tenth Circuit has “‘expressed a
strong preference for James proceedings.’” Id. (quoting United States v. Townley, 472 F.3d 1267,
Case 2:25-cr-00214-CW Document 48 Filed 11/21/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 1
of 2

2
1273 (10th Cir. 2007)). Regardless of whether a James hearing is held, or the matter is reserved
for trial instead, the Speedy Trial Act is tolled while the James motion remains pending. 	Id.
(citations omitted).
Here, the court has already determined a Status Conference is needed to address the motion.
At the Status Conference, the court will address whether a James hearing is needed or if the matter
may be preserved for trial. Accordingly, based on the posture of the case, the Speedy Trial Act
has been tolled and no motion to continue trial is needed while the Act is tolled. For this reason,
and to clarify the record, the court ORDERS:
1. 	The trial date is vacated, and the Speedy Trial Act is tolled effective October 10,
2025—the date the Motion for a James Hearing (ECF No. 38) was filed;
2. 	The Motion to Continue Trial (ECF No. 42) is denied a moot;
3. 	The Motion for Leave to File Under Seal (ECF No. 43) is granted;
4. 	This Memorandum Decision supersedes the Order Taking the Motion to Continue
Under Advisement (ECF No. 46) and that Order is now moot.
DATED this 21st day of November, 2025.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________________
Clark Waddoups
United States District Judge
Case 2:25-cr-00214-CW Document 48 Filed 11/21/25 PageID.<pageID> Page 2
of 2