U.S. v. KUZMENKO, 2:12-CR-00062 JAM. (2013)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20131115e75
Visitors: 20
Filed: Nov. 14, 2013
Latest Update: Nov. 14, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING THE TRIAL DATE AND SETTING DATE FOR ARGUMENT OF MOTION IN LIMINE JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant Anna Kuzmenko, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On November 12, 2013, the Court orally granted the defendant's motion to continue the trial previously set for November 18, 2013, on the grounds that she was not fully capable of assisting in her o
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING THE TRIAL DATE AND SETTING DATE FOR ARGUMENT OF MOTION IN LIMINE JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge. Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant Anna Kuzmenko, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On November 12, 2013, the Court orally granted the defendant's motion to continue the trial previously set for November 18, 2013, on the grounds that she was not fully capable of assisting in her ow..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER SETTING THE TRIAL DATE AND SETTING DATE FOR ARGUMENT OF MOTION IN LIMINE
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant Anna Kuzmenko, by and through her counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. On November 12, 2013, the Court orally granted the defendant's motion to continue the trial previously set for November 18, 2013, on the grounds that she was not fully capable of assisting in her own defense due to a recent medical condition of her son. The Court verbally excluded time under the Speedy Trial Act until the time of the new trial under Local Codes E and T4. The Court ordered the parties to consult with its clerk and decide on a new trial by the close of business today.
2. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a. The trial date will be set for June 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom 6. Trial confirmation will be May 6, 2014 at 9:45 a.m. b. Argument if necessary on motions in limine will be scheduled for Monday, June 2, 2014 at 9:00 a.m.
c. The discovery associated with this case is over 2,000 pages plus audio recordings, including investigative reports, loan and escrow files, bank records, and related documents in paper and electronic form. All of this discovery has been produced directly to counsel or counsel has had an opportunity to review it.
d. In addition, defendant requested last week copies of the discovery in United States v. Kuzmenko et al., 2:11-CR-210 JAM. This discovery consists of over 38,000 pages.
e. As more detailed in her motion to continue, counsel for defendant desires additional time to complete the review of discovery, get recordings translated, and to conduct defense investigation.
f. Counsel for the defendant believes that failure to give her until June 2, 2014, to prepare would deny her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.
g. The government does not object to the new trial date of June 2, 2014.
h. 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.
i. 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 November 18, 2013 to June 2, 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.
3. 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 FOUND AND ORDERED
Source: Leagle
