United States v. Kohn

2:25-cr-01030

N.D. Iowa

Aug 6, 2025

Check Treatment

Docket

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. SPENCER WILLIAM KOHN, RYAN MICHAEL ZALAZNIK, and CHRISTOPHER JOHN DAVIS

Case No. 25-cr-1030-CJW

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA EASTERN DIVISION

August 6, 2025

Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge

ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL

Before the Court is Defendant Spencer Kohn‘s Unopposed Motion to Continue Trial Date and to Continue Pretrial Motion Deadline. (Doc. 41.) Trial is currently scheduled for September 8, 2025. The Government and Co-Defendants do not resist said motion.

“District courts are afforded broad discretion when ruling on requests for continuances, but [c]ontinuances generally are not favored and should be granted only when the party requesting one has shown a compelling reason.” United States v. Jirak, 728 F.3d 806, 815 (8th Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Cotroneo, 89 F.3d 510, 514 (8th Cir. 1996)) (internal quotes omitted). “In determining whether to grant a continuance, the trial judge must balance the asserted need for the continuance against the hardship of the resulting delay, and should also consider the complexity of the case, the diligence of the party requesting a continuance, and the conduct of the opposing party.” United States v. Farlee, 757 F.3d 810, 821 (8th Cir. 2014), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 504 (2014) (citing United States v. Coronel-Quintana, 752 F.2d 1284, 1287-88 (8th Cir. 1985)). When balancing the foregoing factors, the court may also consider: “whether a delay will seriously disadvantage either party,” potential prejudice to Defendant, and how the continuance weighs against Defendant‘s interest in a speedy trial. See Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)-(7) (2016) (stating when a continuance is “excludable” from the time allotted for a Speedy Trial); see also United States v. Moe, 536 F.3d 825, 831 (8th Cir. 2008); United States v. Roberts, 787 F.3d 1204, 1212 (8th Cir. 2015); United States v. Dunn, 723 F.3d 919, 928 (8th Cir. 2013). “Because this balancing requires familiarity with the parties and particular circumstances of the case, the trial court retains broad discretion to grant a continuance.” Farlee, 757 F.3d 810 at 821 (citing Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11, (1983)).

In the instant case, the Court finds the reasons advanced by Defendant for the continuance serve the ends of justice and outweigh the interests of the public and Defendant‘s right to a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Accordingly, for good cause shown, the motion to continue trial is granted. The trial of this cause scheduled for September 8, 2025, is hereby continued to commence during the two-week period beginning on November 17, 2025.¹ The pretrial motions deadline is continued to September 11, 2025. Further, for the reasons set forth above, the time from the date of the motion to the time of trial is excluded for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Id.

IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of August, 2025.

Image in original document

Mark A. Roberts, United States Magistrate Judge

Northern District of Iowa

Notes

The time frames and plea hearing deadline requirements established in the trial management orders at Docs. 19 and 25 continue to govern this case, but now with the new trial date scheduled to commence during the two-week period beginning November 17, 2025, substituted, the time frames now attach to the new trial date scheduled.

Read the detailed case summary