IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
March 10, 2010
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
JACK D. BARRON, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: B. Lynn Winmill Chief Judge United States District Court
The Court has before it Defendant's Substitution of Counsel (Docket No. 49). This case has been pending for just over a year, having been continued several times for several different reasons. The case is now set for trial on March 29, 2010.
On March 3, 2010, defense counsel, Clark Peterson, was informed that he will be appointed Magistrate Judge for Kootenai County, Idaho. Mr. Peterson will attend Magistrate Judge training during the week of March 15. He is scheduled to be sworn in as a Magistrate Judge on or about March 26, 2010, with his duties commencing on March 30, 2010. These events conflict with the March 29, 2010 trail date in this matter.
Upon learning of Mr. Clark's dilemma, the Court conducted a status conference in this case on March 5, 2010. The Court indicated that although it was sympathetic and understanding of Mr. Peterson's desire to assume his judicial duties, the Court perceived that his desired start date was not mandatory and that it was trumped by his ethical obligation to his client to try the case as scheduled. The court also noted that pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, both the defendant and the public have an interest in a speedy trial.
Mr. Peterson, recognizing his ethical duties, had already contacted another attorney, James E. Siebe, about substituting in as counsel for Mr. Barron. The Court is familiar with Mr. Siebe and considers him an excellent attorney. Therefore, the Court explained that it would have no problem with Mr. Siebe substituting in as counsel for Mr. Barron, so long as Mr. Barron agreed to the substitution and Mr. Siebe had the resources, time and familiarity with the case to proceed with trial as scheduled.
On March 9, 2010, counsel filed a notice of substitution of counsel indicating that Mr. Siebe would substitute in as counsel for Mr. Barron, and that Mr. Barron would not request a continuance of the trial date based on the substitution of counsel. Under these circumstances, the Court will grant the substitution, and the case will proceed to trial as scheduled.
NOW THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Substitution of Counsel (Docket No. 49) shall be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED, and that James E. Siebe shall be substituted in as counsel for Mr. Barron.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.