When the government and the defendant disclose out-of-state witnesses and the defendant will not have enough time to prepare for trial, in the absence of a continuance, a court can grant a continuance and exclude the time for purposes of the Speedy Trial Act. Allegedly, the defendant filed a false tax return and received a refund in the amount of $616,434, which he used to pay off his mortgage. The government charged the defendant with making a false claim against the U.S. and attempting to interfere with the administration of the internal revenue laws. The government requested a competency exam, and a psychologist concluded that the defendant was competent to stand trial and was not competent to represent himself. The defendant moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial. The Sixth Amendment grants a criminal defendant the right to a speedy trial. A delay is proper if the delay results from the defendant's motion to dismiss. Section 3161(h)(7)(A) of the Speedy Trial Act allows the District Court to exclude "any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge . . . at the request of the attorney for the government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served . . . outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." Both sides identified out-of-state witnesses. The court found that in the absence of a continuance, the defendant and his attorney will not have sufficient time to prepare for trial. Granting a continuance, and an exclusion of time caused by the continuance, from the 70-day period for commencement of trial under the Speedy Trial Act, serves the ends of justice to a greater extent than does conducting a trial that is speedy. The court granted a continuance to November 5 and excluded the time between July 30 and November 5 from the time counted under the Speedy Trial Act.

VIEW FULL CASE