Filed: Aug. 30, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 14, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 19, 2017, and to exclude time between September 14, 2017, and October 19, 2017, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 14, 2017. 2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 19, 2017, and to exclude time between September 14, 2017, and October 19, 2017, under Local Code T4. 3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: a) The g..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
STIPULATION
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on September 14, 2017.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until October 19, 2017, and to exclude time between September 14, 2017, and October 19, 2017, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports and related documents, business records, tribal documents, digital images, and various recordings. To date, hundreds of thousands of pages of discovery, multiple multimedia disks, and several terabytes worth of digital evidence have been produced directly to defense counsel. In addition, the government continues to process and produce several more terabytes of digital evidence for eventual production to the defense, and is making arrangements to make available for defendants' inspection hard copy evidence seized during search warrants executed in this investigation.
b) Counsel for defendants desire additional time consult with their clients, research the facts and law of this case, review the voluminous discovery in this matter that they have already received and anticipate receiving on an ongoing basis, and conduct resulting additional investigation and research.
c) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) The government does not object to the continuance. The government has advised defense counsel that, at the next status conference in October, the government anticipates seeking trial dates and a motion schedule for all pretrial motions.
e) 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.
f) 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 September 14, 2017 to October 19, 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.
STIPULATION RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER 3
ATTESTATIONS
The undersigned counsel of record for defendants John Crosby and Ines Crosby, jointly represented by the law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters, LLP, hereby attest and affirm that they are not presently aware of any actual conflicts of interest regarding the joint representation of John Crosby and Ines Crosby.
IT IS SO ATTESTED.
Dated: August 28, 2017. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
/s/Elliot R. Peters, Esq.
ELLIOT R. PETERS, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant John Crosby
Dated: August 28, 2017. KEKER, VAN NEST & PETERS, LLP
/s/Benedict Y. Hur, Esq.
BENEDICT Y. HUR, Esq.
ERIN E. MEYERS, Esq.
Counsel for Defendant Ines Crosby
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.
