YP – DeLaughter requests more time to file pre-trial motions, cites incomplete Hinds court records
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
) No. 09 CR 002-2
v. ) Judge Glen H. Davidson
) Magistrate Judge S. Allan Alexander
BOBBY B. DELAUGHTER )
DEFENDANT DELAUGHTER’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR AN EXTENSION
OF TIME WITHIN WHICH TO FILE ADDITIONAL PRETRIAL MOTIONS
Defendant, BOBBY B. DELAUGHTER, by and through his attorneys, THOMAS
ANTHONY DURKIN, JOHN D. CLINE, and LAWRENCE L. LITTLE, pursuant to the Due
Process and Effective Assistance of Counsel provisions of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to
the Constitution of the United States, respectfully moves this Court for a twenty-eight (28) day
extension of time within which to file additional pretrial motions that are now scheduled to be
filed on or before June 1, 2009. The government has no objection to the granting of this request.
In support of this motion, Defendant, through counsel, shows to the Court the following:
1. On March 26, 2009, counsel timely filed five substantive pretrial motions that
have either been decided or withdrawn. In addition, defendant filed a motion for an extension of
time to file additional pretrial motions that may become necessary based upon further defense
investigation and receipt of discovery documents.
2. On April 27, 2009, this Court granted the motion for an extension of time and
ordered that additional motions be filed on or before June 1, 2009.
3. Also on April 27, 2009, undersigned counsel and Mr. Little met with government
counsel regarding their formal discovery requests set forth in a detailed letter dated March 24,
Case 3:09-cr-00002-GHD-SAA Document 68 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 1 of 4
2009. The parties were able to agree upon several major requests and have been diligently
working to avoid having to trouble the Court with these issues.
4. One significant discovery issue which the parties thought had been resolved has
now become a problem, however. As indicated to the Court in the March 23, 2009, telephonic
status conference hearing, and in prior pleadings, the parties anticipated that obtaining the
complete Hinds County court file would not be a problem and that the government anticipated
simply copying the very voluminous file that had been received by them from the FBI. It now
appears that this copy, for whatever reason, is not the complete court file and that the
government’s copy is seriously out of order and virtually unable to be used by the defense in a
5. Due to the underlying nature of these charges, it is quite obvious that it is critical
to the preparation of the defense and filing of further pre-trial motions that counsel have access
to the entire court file. It is anticipated that it will require an additional one or two weeks for the
complete file to be available to the defense.
6. In addition to this significant discovery issue, co-counsel John Cline has been
very instrumental to date in the preparation of most of the substantive pre-trial motions and is
necessary to assist in the filing of further motions. Unfortunately, Mr. Cline has been required to
be in New York City for most of the past two weeks in the matter of United States v. Kozeny and
Bourke, No. 05 Crim. 518 (SAS). This matter is scheduled for a jury trial beginning on June 1,
2009, and is anticipated to last four to six weeks. Mr. Cline had anticipated that this trial date
might be moved from its June 1st date when counsel discussed the filing of further motions in
this matter. As a result of Mr. Cline’s unexpected schedule issues, undersigned counsel Durkin
Case 3:09-cr-00002-GHD-SAA Document 68 Filed 05/29/2009 Page 2 of 4
and co-counsel Larry Little will need additional time to prepare the motions and work around
Mr. Cline’s trial schedule.
7. Accordingly, undersigned counsel would request an additional twenty-eight (28)
days to file any additional pretrial motions which may be necessary as a result of the receipt of
further discovery and defense investigation.
8. This motion is made in good faith and not for purposes of delay.