Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Emanuel, 2:17-CR-00060-MCE. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20180718846 Visitors: 24
Filed: Jul. 17, 2018
Latest Update: Jul. 17, 2018
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 July 12, 2018. 2. On July 2, 2018, the Court issued a Minute Order continuing the status conference to July 19, 2018. 3. By this stipulation, defendants Pamela Emanuel, Gregory Lee, and Russell White III, now move to continue the status conference until September 6, 2018, and to exclude time between Jul
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; ORDER

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on July 12, 2018.

2. On July 2, 2018, the Court issued a Minute Order continuing the status conference to July 19, 2018.

3. By this stipulation, defendants Pamela Emanuel, Gregory Lee, and Russell White III, now move to continue the status conference until September 6, 2018, and to exclude time between July 12, 2018, and September 6, 2018, under Local Codes T2 and/or T4. The parties further request that this proposed order continuing the status conference and excluding time for the reasons set forth below supersede the Court's July 2, 2018 Minute Order.

4. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a) The government has produced voluminous discovery in this case to all parties. This discovery includes nearly 20,000 pages of reports, business records, bank records, photographs, and Excel spreadsheets. It also includes over 15 compact discs containing media and electronic files. b) The discovery in this case is unusually complex. Counsel for each defendant has been in communication with the government in an effort to understand the discovery and the government's evidence. These communications have prompted additional points of investigation and research in furtherance of defense preparation. c) Counsel for defendants desire additional time to continue to review and analyze the voluminous and complex discovery, to conduct factual and legal research resulting from that review and communications with the government, to confer with his/her client, and to otherwise prepare for trial. d) Counsel for defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them 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 July 12, 2018 to September 6, 2018, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§§ 3161(h)(7)(A) & (B)(ii) [Local Code T2] and/or 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.

5. 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.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer