Filed: Aug. 29, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 29, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . The defendant, Lashawndra Walker, by and through her counsel, Toni White, and defendant Samantha Sampson, by and through her counsel, Hannah Labaree, the Government, by and through its counsel, Roger Yang, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 31, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference u
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . The defendant, Lashawndra Walker, by and through her counsel, Toni White, and defendant Samantha Sampson, by and through her counsel, Hannah Labaree, the Government, by and through its counsel, Roger Yang, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 31, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference un..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING CONTINUANCE OF STATUS CONFERENCE; ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
The defendant, Lashawndra Walker, by and through her counsel, Toni White, and defendant Samantha Sampson, by and through her counsel, Hannah Labaree, the Government, by and through its counsel, Roger Yang, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 31, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 26, 2017, and to exclude time between August 31, 2017, and October 26, 2017, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) Discovery in this matter stands at 11,967 Bates stamped pages. There are also 3 audio CDs. Defense counsel needs time to review discovery, to consult with their clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients and otherwise prepare for trial.
b) Defense counsels believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
c) The government does not object to the continuance.
d) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
e) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of August 31, 2017 to October 26, 2017, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendants' request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
