Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

58 - WS Gov - Uscourts.ord.124749.58.0

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 5

PlainSite

Legal Document
Oregon District Court
Case No. 3:15-cr-00438
USA v. Shrout
Document 58

View Document

View Docket

A joint project of Think Computer Corporation and Think Computer Foundation.


Cover art 2015 Think Computer Corporation. All rights reserved.
Learn more at http://www.plainsite.org.

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO

Document 58

Filed 09/09/16

Page 1 of 4

Ruben L. Iiguez
Assistant Federal Public Defender
101 SW Main Street, Suite 1700
Portland, OR 97204
Tel: (503) 326-2123
Fax: (503) 326-5524
Email: ruben_iniguez@fd.org
Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.

Case No. 3:15-cr-00438-JO


REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND
MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL
DATE

WINSTON SHROUT,
Defendant.
The pro se defendant, Winston Shrout, through his advisory counsel, Ruben L.
Iiguez, submits the following reply in support of his second motion to continue the
current trial date. ECF 56. By way of his motion, Mr. Shrout is seeking a continuance of
the jury trial date for 120 days (i.e., until February 7, 2017). Id.

Page 1 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO

Document 58

Filed 09/09/16

Page 2 of 4

On September 8, 2016, the government filed a written opposition to Mr. Shrouts


motion for a continuance. ECF 57. It asks the Court to deny his request and suggests that
a hearing on his motion should be held. Id. Mr. Shrout did not request a hearing on his
motion, and none is necessary.1 However, a brief reply to the governments submission
is required as it ignores and misstates several undisputed facts:
1.

This Court has rightfully declare[d] the case Complex. ECF 26.

2.

While the government is represented by not one, but two, seasoned trial

attorneys in the U.S. Department of Justice Tax Division, Mr. Shrout is representing
himself, with some assistance by advisory counsel. Mr. Shrout has no legal training or
experience.
3.

Yesterday, September 8, barely two hours after the government filed its

opposition to Mr. Shrouts motion, advisory counsel received via Federal Express yet
another batch of discovery from the government. The disk contains more than 114 pages
of materials. The government makes no mention of this fact in its written submission to
the Court. See ECF 57.
4.

The government concedes that Mr. Shrout accurately states the scope of

discovery [it has produced] in this case. ECF at 3. To date, the government has

The parties written submissions are thorough and more than sufficient to allow a ruling on the motion.
Additional taxpayer dollars should not be expended for counsel to fly from Washington, D.C., to Portland
with 48 hours advance notice for the purpose of orally presenting arguments which have been fully
briefed.
1

Page 2 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO

Document 58

Filed 09/09/16

Page 3 of 4

produced: more than 16,300 pages of documents distributed across 18 separate disks; one
hard drive containing forensic images of nine separate computers (or a total of 1.81
terabytes of data); another hard drive containing 800 gigabytes of data located in a single,
disorganized folder; and more than 65 hours of video and audio tape materials.
5.

The government attempts to minimize the tremendous volume of materials

confronting Mr. Shrout, claiming he is focused more on the amount of material provided
than on what the material contained. ECF 57 at 4. The government disregards the fact
that Mr. Shrout must necessarily review all the materials it has produced in order to
determine what the material contain[s].
6.

Less than six months have elapsed since Mr. Shrout was arraigned on the

Superseding Indictment. ECF 26. Prior to the governments filing of the Superseding
Indictment, the only charges against Mr. Shrout were misdemeanors. ECF 1. He now
faces an additional 13 felonies. ECF 17.

The gravity of the new charges make it

imperative that he be afforded sufficient time to prepare adequately for trial.


7.

The government has had more than eight years to investigate its case and

prepare for trial. By contrast, Mr. Shrout has had less than one year to consider the
charges, review the voluminous discovery, conduct investigation, and prepare for trial.

Page 3 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

Case 3:15-cr-00438-JO

8.

Document 58

Filed 09/09/16

Page 4 of 4

The government claims Mr. Shrout has requested an additional six months

of time to prepare for trial. ECF at 2. That is not true. Mr. Shrouts motion makes clear
he is only requesting a continuance of four months (i.e., 120 days). See ECF 56.
9.

While it is true that the Speedy Trial Act is intended to protect the rights of

both a defendant and the public to a speedy trial, the undisputed facts in this particular
case establish that Mr. Shrouts right to due process of law and the ends of justice
outweigh the publics rights.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 9th day of September, 2016.
/s/ Ruben L. Iiguez
Ruben L. Iiguez
Advisory Counsel for Pro Se Defendant

Page 4 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF SECOND MOTION TO CONTINUE JURY TRIAL DATE

You might also like