In this racketeering case, the State convinced a judge to detain the defendants, in part, based on representations about the strength of the state’s case as a result of a robust investigation. Later, when the State was obligated under the new speedy trial provisions of the Criminal Justice Reform Act to secure an indictment within 90 days, the State sought an extension. The State did not contend that it could not get an indictment, just that more time would allow even more investigation and, possibly, more charges. The trial court denied the provision of “excludable time,” pointing out that the State could later seek a superseding indictment. The State appealed. The ACLU-NJ filed an amicus brief in support of the trial court’s authority to deny excludable time in cases like this.