United States v. Bridges, 3:25-cr-00023

Defendant Jacob Cole Bridges filed an unopposed motion to continue pretrial motion deadlines, plea deadline, and trial date by at least ninety days.
The need for continuance was based on the volume and format of discovery (including multimedia materials) requiring additional review and consultation with counsel.
The defendant’s counsel also needed time to review the sentencing guidelines and discuss potential outcomes with Bridges.
Bridges is housed in a remote facility in Laurel County, Kentucky, limiting access for review and preparation.
Both parties agreed that the time between the motion and a rescheduled court date would be excludable under the Speedy Trial Act.
The government did not oppose the motion, and the court found that the interests of justice outweighed the right to a speedy trial, granting the continuance.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Should trial and pretrial deadlines be continued?	No objection from the govt.	Requires more time to review discovery and for prep	Motion to continue granted; deadlines extended.
Is the time excludable under Speedy Trial Act?	No objection from the govt.	Agrees time should be excludable for preparation	Time fully excludable from May 7 to new trial date.
Sufficiency of preparation time for defense	No specific argument	Needs extra time due to volume, travel, and logistics	Court agrees more time is needed for fair preparation.
Effect on interests of speedy trial	Not raised as a concern	Acknowledges delay, prioritizes thorough preparation	Justice of continuance outweighs public/defendant interest.

(No official case law with reporter citations was cited in this memorandum and order. Only statutes were referenced.)