United States of America v. Eric LaDeaux

Rapid City, South Dakota, criminal defense lawyer represented the Defendant charged with conspiracy to distribute controlled substances (drugs).



LaDeaux was indicted in a second superseding indictment and made his first appearance on November 15, 2021, starting his speedy trial clock. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). As relevant here, three approximately 90-day continuances followed. Codefendant Taylor Hise moved for the first on December 30, 2021, citing the need "to review discovery materials” and "discuss resolution with the government.” Codefendant Devina Desersa moved for the second on February 22, 2022, citing the need for more time to investigate, difficulty communicating with her lawyer because of "pregnancy and problems associated with it,” and "difficulty in locating witnesses that need to be contacted.” And codefendant Hise moved for the third on April 22, 2022, for the same reasons as in December. The district court, over LaDeaux's objections, granted each motion as serving "the ends of justice” under § 3161(h)(7)(A), and citing the codefendants' reasons.



* * *



The Speedy Trial Act "requires that trial begin within 70 days after a

defendant is charged or makes an initial appearance.” United States v. Lucas, 499

F.3d 769, 782 (8th Cir. 2007) (en banc). But "the speedy trial clock runs only if

none of § 3161(h)'s eight enumerated exclusions apply.” United States v. Boyd, 138

F.4th 1079, 1082, (8th Cir. 2025); see also § 3162(a). "[E]xclusions of time

attributable to one defendant apply to all codefendants,” United States v. Patterson,

140 F.3d 767, 772 (8th Cir. 1998), and "[a] judge's finding that a continuance would

best serve the ends of justice is a factual determination,” United States v. Villarreal,

707 F.3d 942, 953 (8th Cir. 2013) (quotation omitted). We review factual findings

for clear error, any legal conclusions de novo, and the ultimate Speedy Trial Act

ruling for an abuse of discretion. United States v. Porchay, 651 F.3d 930, 935 (8th

Cir. 2011).

The Defendant was found guilty and was sentenced to 300 months custody to run concurrent to the sentence in 5:20CR50128-1, 10 years supervised release and $100 VAF.



Affirmed