United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
E. CONRAD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
August 30, 2017, the parties appeared before the court for a
hearing on various motions filed by the government and the
defendants. This memorandum opinion sets forth the
court's rulings on the pending motions.
March 16, 2017, Regan and Susan Reedy were charged in an
eleven-count indictment returned by a grand jury in the
Western District of Virginia. Count One charges Mr. Reedy
with conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service, in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. Counts Two through Eleven
charge the defendants with bankruptcy fraud under 18 U.S.C.
§ 152(1) & (3).
April 10, 2017, the defendants were brought before a
magistrate judge for their initial appearances, and counsel
was appointed to represent them. The following day, both
defendants were released on bond. A jury trial was scheduled
to begin on June 20, 2017.
25, 2017, the court held an attorney status hearing at which
both defendants waived the right to counsel and elected to
proceed pro se. The court severed their cases for trial and
rescheduled the jury trials for August 7, 2017 and August 14,
2017, respectively. Both defendants executed written waivers
of their right to a speedy trial and expressly consented to
having their trials continued from the original date.
4, 2017, Mr. Reedy was arrested and charged in state court
with forgery and providing false information to a law
enforcement officer. The following day, the United States
Probation Office petitioned for the issuance of an arrest
warrant and the revocation of Mr. Reedy's bond. An arrest
warrant was issued on June 6, 2017 and lodged as a detainer
with the state authorities. Mr. Reedy remains in state
August 3, 2017, the parties appeared before the court for a
hearing on motions filed by the government. The following
day, the court entered an order directing the government to
provide Mr. Reedy access to its written discovery materials
in hard copy form, and to make arrangements for him to listen
to and/or view any relevant audio or video recordings.
Additionally, in order to allow the pro se defendants
additional time to review discovery and prepare for trial,
the court continued Mr. Reedy's jury trial to September
13, 2017, and Mrs. Reedy's jury trial to September 28,
2017. Given the defendants' failure to initiate timely
discovery requests and their expressed desire to reschedule
their trial until such time as they could make more complete
preparations, the court deemed the intervening periods
excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§
3161-3174. Specifically, the court found that the ends of
justice served by granting a continuance outweighed the best
interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The court indicated that
its finding was based on the determination that the failure
to continue the defendants' trials would deny them the
reasonable time necessary to effectively prepare, taking into
account the exercise of due diligence. See id §
August 7, 2017, Special Agent Ross Pierson delivered a box
containing written discovery materials and seven discs to the
Western Virginia Regional Jail, where Mr. Reedy is currently
incarcerated. Mr. Reedy refused to sign the form
acknowledging receipt of the materials. On August 8, 2017,
after the jail expressed a preference for providing inmates
access to discovery via electronic means, Special Agent
Pierson delivered eight discs containing the discovery
applicable to Mr. Reedy's case. Mr. Reedy once again
refused to sign the form acknowledging receipt of the
materials. Likewise, on August 18, 2017, Mr. Reedy refused to
sign the form acknowledging receipt of an additional disc.
August 11, 2017, the government moved to modify the
court's previous order regarding discovery in Mr.
Reedy's case. The government then moved for a ruling on
several requests for discovery by Mrs. Reedy. In the
meantime, the defendants filed various submissions
challenging the court's jurisdiction. The court held a
hearing on all of the pending motions on August 30, 2017.
During the hearing, the defendants made additional oral
Motion to modify the August 4, 2017 order
government moved to modify the provision of the August 4,
2017 order pertaining to Mr. Reedy's access to discovery.
For the reasons stated during the hearing, the court finds
that the government has satisfied its current discovery
obligations in Mr. Reedy's case. Accordingly, the court
will grant the government's motion. It is understood,
however, that the court is willing to have Mr. Reedy
transported to the federal courthouse to review the discovery
in his case, including ...