Filed: Jun. 02, 2016
Latest Update: Jun. 02, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 2, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 30, 2016, and to exclude time between
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr. , District Judge . STIPULATION Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 2, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 30, 2016, and to exclude time between ..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, Jr., District Judge.
STIPULATION
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, by and through defendant's counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on June 2, 2016.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until June 30, 2016, and to exclude time between June 2, 2016, and June 30, 2016, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government represents that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports, search-related documents and photographs, and certain items of real evidence, including alleged and narcotics. All this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying.
b) Counsel for defendant is currently engaged in the trial of People v. James in Department 26 of the Sacramento Superior Court. That case is expected to last through June 4, 2016.
c) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client; to review the current charges; to conduct investigation and research related to the charges; to review the discovery for this matter, including real evidence; to discuss potential resolutions with his client; and to otherwise prepare for trial.
d) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
e) The government does not object to the continuance.
f) 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.
g) 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 June 2, 2016 to June 30, 2016, 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 defendant's 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.
