Williams V Clark Pros And Cons

844 Words4 Pages

COME NOW your Defendants, IVAN DUANE WILLIAMS and DENNIS RAY DAVIS, JR., by counsel, and hereby move to continue the currently scheduled trial date of December 12-14, 2017 pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and in support thereof, state as follows:
1. Defendants are charged with one count of conspiracy to sex traffic minors, and three counts of sex trafficking minors.
2. Discovery in this matter is voluminous. Numerous law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, Henrico County Police, and Fairfax County Police have been investigating this case for over a year and over multiple jurisdictions, including various locations in Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia. …show more content…

Furthermore, as a recent case development, it appears that co-defendant Chelsea Canterbury is scheduled to enter a guilty plea on November 30, and will testify against Defendants Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis. Just as with the other alleged co-conspirators or victims who are expected to testify at trial, Ms. Canterbury's credibility will be a key issue at trial. Therefore, to provide effective representation, counsel for the remaining defendants must now thoroughly investigate Ms. Canterbury before trial. This additional requirement for trial preparation has come with relatively little time before the currently scheduled trial …show more content…

The government objects to this motion, however, whether to grant a motion for a continuance is within the broad discretion of the district court. See, e.g. United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 662-66 (1984); Morris v. Slappy, 461 U.S. 1, 11-12 (1983); and United States v. Hoyte, 51 F.3d 1239, 1245 (4th Cir. 1995). It is in the interests of justice that the motion be granted in that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis request a continuance of their trial date so that their attorneys may be fully prepared for their trials. Defendants are facing a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison, with a maximum of life in prison, if convicted. Therefore, the ends of justice and the effective assistance of counsel is served by a continuance. WHEREFORE, Mr. Williams and Mr. Davis request that this Honorable Court grant the motion and continue to the trial date to a date in the latter part of February 2018, or in the alternative, a hearing on the