USA v. Wells

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Plaintiff,
vs.
JAMES MICHAEL WELLS,
Defendant.
3:13-cr-00008-RRB-JDR
ORDER DENYING UNITED
STATES’ OBJECTION TO
COURT’S SECOND PRETRIAL
SCHEDULING ORDER
(Docket No. 57)
The United States filed an objection to the second pretrial scheduling
order pursuant to Local Magistrate Rule 6, and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) at Docket 57. The
defense filed its response at Docket 70. A hearing on the objections was held on
May 10, 2013.
The United States raises three claims in its objection: (1) There was no
reasonable change in circumstances that justifies the new schedule; (2) the dates
contained in the Second Pre-Trial Order “will certainly result in a continuation of the
February 17, 2014 Trial Date”; and (3) the Speedy Trial Act requires this court to
amend the Second Pretrial Scheduling Order. For reasons stated below, the
objections lack merit.
Case 3:13-cr-00008-SLG Document 72 Filed 05/10/13 Page 1 of 5

In an effort to provide an orderly progression of the case, and to the
extent necessary to provide sufficient time for both parties to prepare, the parties
met and agreed upon a pretrial motions schedule. However, since the First Pre-Trial
Scheduling 	Order, 	the 	defense 	demonstrated 	that 	a 	sufficient 	change 	in
circumstances has occurred, which necessitates the continuation of the First Pretrial
Scheduling Order. For example, the volume of discovery that the government
produced far exceeded defense counsels’ expectations. To date, the government
turned over 18,440 pages of written material, approximately 1500 photographs, and
3.6 terabytes of audio, video, and electronic files. Docket 70, at 3. As of April 8,
2013, the government had not turned over all Rule 16 material as ordered in the
amended pretrial scheduling order. Docket 45, at 10. The government did not
provide recordings of the conversation between Mr. Wells and a “confidential human
source” until May 9, 2013. Docket 70, at 2.
Additionally, the defense was unable to view the information stored on
at least one hard drive that was turned over by the government. The government
corrected the error on April 26 just before the April 29 hearing to address the
defense motion for reconsideration.
Based on defense counsels’ erroneous expectations, defense counsels’
inability to view necessary information, and the government’s failure to turn over all
Rule 16 material as ordered by the court, the defense has not been given an
adequate opportunity to determine which witnesses need to be interviewed and what
2	13-cr-008-RRB-JDR WELLS @57 Order Denying United States' Objection to Court's Second Pretrial Scheduling Order.wpd 	2
Case 3:13-cr-00008-SLG Document 72 Filed 05/10/13 Page 2 of 5

other evidence should be presented in any motions to suppress. Therefore, the
defense has presented this court with compelling reasons that necessitate the
extension of the First Pretrial Motions Schedule.
The government’s position that the dates contained in the Second Pre-
Trial Order “will certainly result in a continuation of the February 17, 2014 Trial Date”
are based on “conservative estimates,” which anticipate using the maximum time
possible for every motion before the court. The deadlines laid out in the second
pretrial motion schedule should not lead to continuance of the trial date. Both sides
agree that the key motions at issue are motions to suppress statements and motions
to suppress evidence. The defense requires additional time to complete those
motions.
Furthermore, until we are notified otherwise, this case will proceed as
a potential death penalty case. The defense was notified on April 5, 2013 that any
defense mitigation information for the DOJ death notice decision must be produced
by May 1, 2013. Producing the necessary mitigation information takes a substantial
amount of time and requires significant resources — time and resources that could
have otherwise been used on suppression motions. Therefore, the government’s
claim that the defense had four months to finish its suppression motions is
overblown. The suppression motions are the key motions at issue and deserve
defense counsels’ undivided attention.
3	13-cr-008-RRB-JDR WELLS @57 Order Denying United States' Objection to Court's Second Pretrial Scheduling Order.wpd 	3
Case 3:13-cr-00008-SLG Document 72 Filed 05/10/13 Page 3 of 5

The government is correct that the Speedy Trial Act grants district
courts an “independent responsibility to protect both the defendant’s and the public’s
strong interest in the timely administration of justice.” United States v. Messer,
197 F.3d 330, 337 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting United States v. Hall, 181 F.3d 1957,
1062 (9th Cir. 1999)). The court is sympathetic to the victims’ concerns. However,
this case has been declared complex and the potential for the government to seek
the death penalty still exists, which is why the trial was scheduled for one year from
the date of the indictment. This court’s responsibility is to balance the competing
interests to ensure the timely administration of justice. The deadlines set out in the
Second Pretrial Scheduling Order are consistent with the court’s independent
responsibility as required by the Speedy Trial Act.
Both parties should be aware that in this district the magistrate is
assigned all criminal pretrial matters. If the magistrate judge decides that he cannot
address the motions in a timely manner he will refer the motions back to the
assigned district judge. The courts own case management is a matter for the court
to decide. If the government’s motion is designed to remove the magistrate judge
from this case it is ill advised.
//
//
//
//
4	13-cr-008-RRB-JDR WELLS @57 Order Denying United States' Objection to Court's Second Pretrial Scheduling Order.wpd 	4
Case 3:13-cr-00008-SLG Document 72 Filed 05/10/13 Page 4 of 5

In conclusion, the dates contained in the Second Pretrial Scheduling
Order should not cause a continuation of trial. Upon careful consideration, the
government’s objection to the Second Pretrial Scheduling Order is HEREBY
DENIED.
Any further objections to the Second Pretrial Order filed at Docket 56,
shall be directed to the assigned district judge.
DATED this 10th day of May, 2013, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ John D. Roberts
JOHN D. ROBERTS
United States Magistrate Judge
5	13-cr-008-RRB-JDR WELLS @57 Order Denying United States' Objection to Court's Second Pretrial Scheduling Order.wpd 	5
Case 3:13-cr-00008-SLG Document 72 Filed 05/10/13 Page 5 of 5