United States v. Lybolt
1:24-cr-00212
| D. Colo. | Aug 8, 2024Background
- Joshua Lybolt and Magdalena Lybolt were indicted for multiple counts related to wire fraud on June 27, 2024.
- Both defendants pleaded not guilty and a jury trial was originally set for September 9, 2024.
- Motions to continue the trial by sixty days were filed by both defendants due to the need for Magdalena Lybolt to retain counsel and to allow more time for discovery review.
- Joshua Lybolt’s counsel represented Magdalena Lybolt for initial hearings but cannot continue due to a conflict of interest.
- The government did not oppose the requested continuance, which would reset the trial to November 12, 2024.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to grant a 60-day continuance and exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act | No opposition | Need for counsel and time for discovery | Granted motion and excluded time from Speedy Trial Act |
| Whether the ends of justice outweigh the right to a speedy trial | Not opposed | Delay necessary for adequate defense preparation | Ends of justice outweigh speedy trial interests |
| Whether failure to grant continuance would prejudicially impact defendants | Not argued | Would hinder ability to prepare and obtain counsel | Failure to continue risks miscarriage of justice |
| Application of statutory factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) | Not opposed | Continuance warranted for effective counsel/prep | Factors all support granting continuance |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. West, 828 F.2d 1468 (10th Cir. 1987) (sets forth factors for evaluating trial continuance requests)
- United States v. Toombs, 574 F.3d 1262 (10th Cir. 2009) (discusses exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act for ends-of-justice continuances)