Facts
-
Donald Biggs was indicted on federal sex-offense charges involving minors, including counts tied to interstate travel.
-
The court previously granted a continuance and reset the trial to begin more than two and a half years after the indictment.
-
As the new trial date neared, the government and court staff rearranged schedules and made travel arrangements, and jury summonses were issued.
-
The government planned to call the minor victims as witnesses; some were expected to graduate from high school that spring.
-
Biggs sought another continuance of four to six months, asserting that:
- Defense counsel needed additional time to review text messages and video evidence that had been available only during limited hours at a police station; and
- Counsel needed time to locate and contact potential witnesses connected to out-of-state trips.
-
The government opposed the requested delay and agreed to steps aimed at reducing any preparation burden, including:
- Making the video evidence available at any time in two locations, including a location where the defense expert was based;
- Allowing the defense to use government technology to search and review the text messages; and
- Dismissing the interstate-travel charges.
-
The government also asked the court to designate the matter as one of special public importance under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j), which directs courts to expedite proceedings when a child is expected to testify.
Issues
- Whether the court should grant Biggs an additional four-to-six-month continuance, given the prior continuance and the approaching trial date.
- How the court should weigh the defendant’s asserted need for more review and investigation time against the statutory directive in 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j) to expedite cases in which children will testify.
- Whether the government’s accommodations and dismissal of certain charges reduced the need for a lengthy continuance.
Decision
- The court denied Biggs’s request for a four-to-six-month continuance.
- The court credited the government’s accommodations (expanded evidence access, search capability for texts, and dismissal of interstate-travel counts) as addressing the main reasons offered for delay.
- The court treated the matter as one calling for expeditious handling in light of anticipated child testimony and the request under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j).
Legal Principles
- A continuance that affects Speedy Trial Act timing must be justified by case-specific findings that the ends of justice warrant the delay, considering the interests of the defendant and the public in a prompt trial. (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7))
- When a child is expected to testify, the court must give weight to Congress’s direction to move the case forward and to limit the length of time the child is involved in the criminal process. (18 U.S.C. § 3509(j))
- In setting a trial schedule, courts may consider the effect of delay on victims and witnesses, including the risk that postponement will prolong stress for child witnesses and disrupt major life events.
- Where the government offers concrete measures that materially improve defense access to evidence and narrows the charges in ways that reduce investigation demands, a substantial additional continuance may be unwarranted.
Conclusion
United States v. Biggs (II) held that a defendant charged with sex offenses involving minors was not entitled to an additional four-to-six-month continuance when the trial had already been continued to a date more than two and a half years after indictment, the government provided expanded access and tools to review electronic evidence and dismissed travel-related counts, and the court was required to give significant weight to 18 U.S.C. § 3509(j)’s instruction to expedite proceedings involving child witnesses.