United States v. Thompson
3:22-cr-00002
D.V.I.Apr 26, 2022Background
- Defendant Dean Thompson's jury trial was continued multiple times from March 21, 2022, ultimately set for May 2, 2022 before the government moved to continue again.
- The United States moved to continue the May 2 trial date and exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act because a material witness (a Postal Inspector who interviewed the defendant) had temporary duty travel and would be unavailable, and defense counsel had a conflicting Superior Court trial date.
- Defense counsel did not object to the government's motion to continue.
- The court found the Postal Inspector to be an "essential" and "unavailable" witness under the Speedy Trial Act and concluded that denying a continuance would impair continuity of counsel.
- The Court granted the continuance and excluded time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 through September 12, 2022, setting jury selection and trial to commence September 12, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in St. Thomas Courtroom 1.
- The Court ordered pre-trial submissions: pre-trial brief by close of business September 2, 2022; electronic exhibit USBs by September 7, 2022; and specified exhibit labeling and proposed jury-related materials to be included in the brief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a continuance and exclusion under the Speedy Trial Act is warranted due to an unavailable material witness | The Postal Inspector is an essential witness and is temporarily unavailable due to duty travel; exclusion is permitted under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)(A) | No objection to the continuance by Thompson | Granted — the Postal Inspector is an unavailable essential witness and time excluded |
| Whether a continuance is warranted to preserve continuity of counsel | Continuity of counsel would be lost because defense counsel has a conflicting Superior Court trial date; an ends-of-justice continuance is appropriate under § 3161(h)(7) | Thompson did not oppose maintaining current counsel or object to the continuance | Granted — preserving continuity of counsel supports an ends-of-justice exclusion |
| Whether the court may treat a witness as “essential” based on the government's good-faith belief it will use the witness at trial | A witness unquestionably important to the prosecution and whom the government expects to call may be treated as essential | Not disputed | Court applied the standard from precedent and treated the Postal Inspector as essential |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Moore, [citation="701 F. App'x 164"] (3d Cir. 2017) (upholding an ends-of-justice continuance based in part on counsel's scheduling conflicts)
- United States v. Hamilton, 46 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 1995) (a witness may be treated as "essential" under the Speedy Trial Act when the government in good faith expects to use the testimony)