Filed: Apr. 25, 2014
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2014
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 April 29, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 8, 2014, and to exclude time between A
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 April 29, 2014. 2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 8, 2014, and to exclude time between Ap..
More
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, 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 April 29, 2014.
2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until May 8, 2014, and to exclude time between April 29, 2014 and May 8, 2014, 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 seven DVDs containing 2527 pages of reports, documents and photographs. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. This discovery relates to conduct dating back to the year of 2007.
b) Counsel for defendant is still in a four co-defendant homicide jury trial — People v. Rashid Tanko, et al., Sacramento County Superior Case Number: 11F02295 — which is not now expected to conclude until late April or early May 2014. Further, defense counsel has been recently made aware that transcripts from a state court proceeding may be relevant to the parties' negotiations in seeking a resolution in this case. Accordingly, defense counsel needs additional time to obtain the transcripts and to further discuss a potential resolution.
c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
d) The government does not object to the continuance.
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 April 29, 2014 to May 8, 2014 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.
Dated: April 24, 2014 BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
Michael D. Anderson
Assistant United States Attorney
FINDINGS AND ORDER
IT IS SO FOUND AND ORDERED.
