United States v. Denham, 3:25-cr-05045

Jesse Denham was charged in March 2025 with possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute and unlawful possession of a firearm.
Denham was appointed defense counsel on March 25, 2025.
The original trial date was set for June 3, 2025.
Defense counsel requested a continuance to a date on or before July 31, 2025, due to needing more time for discovery, pre-trial motions, and trial preparation.
The government did not oppose the continuance, but Denham personally objected and asserted his speedy trial rights.
The court heard arguments and considered the impact of a continuance on all parties.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to grant a continuance of the trial date	Not opposed to continuance	Denham insisted on speedy trial, objected	Continuance granted for defense prep.
Whether the ends of justice outweigh speedy trial	Continuance serves justice needs	Denham argued for his speedy trial rights	Ends of justice favored continuance
Sufficiency of defense counsel's need for time	N/A	Denham did not contest counsel's workload	Need for prep time found reasonable
Inconvenience to parties and court	Government not inconvenienced	Denham did not raise specific concerns	No undue inconvenience identified

United States v. Tham, 960 F.2d 1391 (9th Cir. 1991) (lists factors for evaluating a continuance request in criminal cases)
United States v. Lloyd, 125 F.3d 1263 (9th Cir. 1997) (requires probing inquiry when defendant objects to continuance requested by defense counsel)