In other news, O’Mara filed a motion to continue and a waiver of speedy trial today, here:
http://www.flcourts18.org/presspublic.html
Does that mean that there will be no arraignment today?
We knew there would be no arraignment. Defendant waived it weeks ago, by pleading not guilty in writing.
The Motion to continue and waiving speedy trial essentially gets rid of the 175 day statutory deadline for having a trial.
All the action suggests that O'Mara and Corey are working in cahoots to push ultimate resolution as far into the future as the courts will allow.
So, O'Mara waived the times provided in Rule 3.191 ...
(a) Speedy Trial without Demand. Except as otherwise provided by this rule, and subject to the limitations imposed under subdivisions (e) and (f), every person charged with a crime shall be brought to trial within 90 days of arrest if the crime charged is a misdemeanor, or within 175 days of arrest if the crime charged is a felony. ...... and in a related motion, he also apprised the court that the additional time is needed to prepare a defense, and that Corey does not object to extending the deadline beyond the date that the law directs.(b) Speedy Trial upon Demand. Except as otherwise provided by this rule, and subject to the limitations imposed under subdivisions (e) and (g), every person charged with a crime by indictment or information shall have the right to demand a trial within 60 days, by filing with the court a separate pleading entitled "Demand for Speedy Trial," and serving a copy on the prosecuting authority.
Reference to 3.191(g) is out of place, because that section of the Rules pertains ONLY if defendant invokes "Speedy Trial upon Demand," which runs a 60 day clock from filing of demand instead of the default 175 day from arrest clock. O'Mara did NOT file a "Demand for Speedy Trial," so he wouldn't be bound by the 60 day deadline in any event.