Circuit court juggling calendar; judge offers October start for multi‑day jury trials

The presiding judge said the court must reschedule several matters because of limited jury‑trial capacity and a rotating judge calendar, and proposed starting a multi‑day jury trial the week of Oct. 20, with a tentative start on Oct. 21.

The judge told attorneys the court has only one courtroom equipped for jury trials and that rotation of visiting judges and criminal‑docket demands constrained available dates. "We're gonna have to take away the 26 of the criminal trial and move it to the 19th," the presiding judge said when offering alternatives, and later: "We'll start it on 21st. Alright. That should be something we can confirm for you in short order."

The court discussed several candidate windows. The judge initially offered June 26–27 for a two‑day bench trial, then explored August and October dates for a four‑day jury trial. After several back‑and‑forths about conflicts, the judge proposed October 20–23 and, after counsel asked to begin on Tuesday, said the court would aim to start on Oct. 21 and confirm availability after consulting the district attorney and court calendar.

Attorneys told the court some earlier dates conflicted with other matters and with an existing trial calendar. The judge noted additional constraints: a newly implemented judge rotation that places a different judge in the courthouse monthly, judicial conferences in October, and criminal docket calls that occupy trial weeks. "We only have 1 courtroom in this courthouse that's set up for a jury trial," the presiding judge said when explaining the scheduling limits.

The judge instructed counsel that clerks would prepare orders once dates are finalized and said the court would follow up later in the morning after checking calendars. No formal motion or vote was recorded; the calendar changes were set as scheduling directions subject to confirmation.

The calendar discussion also included a separate scheduling note that the court would move some criminal matters and probation hearings to accommodate civil trials if feasible. The judge said he would notify attorneys and the clerk would prepare any required orders to document confirmed dates.

The court did not enter a final, signed scheduling order during the docket call; the judge repeatedly emphasized the dates were tentative "subject to my being able to confirm that I can move all of these things."