Filed: Feb. 02, 2015
Latest Update: Feb. 02, 2015
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 10, 2015 TRIAL TO JULY 28, 2015; ORDER ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge. THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Assistant Federal Defender Eric V. Kersten, Counsel for Defendant John Alan Williams ("defendant"), that this action's (a) March 10, 2015 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2015; and (b) February 9, 2015 tr
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 10, 2015 TRIAL TO JULY 28, 2015; ORDER ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge. THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Assistant Federal Defender Eric V. Kersten, Counsel for Defendant John Alan Williams ("defendant"), that this action's (a) March 10, 2015 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2015; and (b) February 9, 2015 tri..
More
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MARCH 10, 2015 TRIAL TO JULY 28, 2015; ORDER
ANTHONY W. ISHII, Senior District Judge.
THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Assistant Federal Defender Eric V. Kersten, Counsel for Defendant John Alan Williams ("defendant"), that this action's (a) March 10, 2015 jury trial be continued to 8:30 a.m. on Tuesday, July 28, 2015; and (b) February 9, 2015 trial confirmation hearing be continued to 10:00 a.m. on Monday, June 29, 2015.
The parties base this stipulation on good cause. To explain, counsel for the government was recently required to seek a continuance of another matter (United States v. Davis, Case No. 1:12-cr-00056 AWI) that was originally scheduled to be tried on December 9, 2014 in this Courtroom and which the parties estimate to require two weeks to try before a jury. A trial date in Davis has now been set for March 17, 2015, one week after this case's current March 10, 2015 trial date.
Davis's continuance became necessary once the government became aware that two of its key witnesses in that matter would not be available for trial on December 9, 2014, due to the fact that Courtroom 2 of the United States District Court in Sacramento had scheduled a separate sex trafficking trial to commence that same week in December 2014, after the Davis trial date had already been set (United States v. Love, Case No. 2:13-cr-306 (TLN)). These witnesses include the same lead agent, as well as a computer forensics agent, who were involved in investigating both cases. Love involved a pro se defendant, and the parties in Davis ultimately agreed that Love would be tried first.
The above re-scheduling report relates to this case as follows: In light of trial counsels' respective calendars in Davis, the only way to reschedule it (a case involving a defendant in custody and who wants his case tried) as early as March 2015 was for counsel for the government to first obtain defendant Williams' counsel's tentative agreement to move the Williams trial date from March 10, 2015 to a later date, assuming the parties did not timely reach a resolution of the case beforehand. Such agreement was obtained last November, by way of a phone call while in this court's chambers, as a new date in Davis was being determined.
Since that time, the parties in this matter have not yet reached a resolution of this case. They remain in discussions in this regard, however, and plan on further analyzing case evidence in an attempt to reach a resolution. As a result, the parties stipulate to continue this action's trial date from March 10, 2015 to July 28, 2015. Through this continuance, the parties believe that the likelihood that this case could be resolved prior to trial is maximized. The parties' good cause continuance request is based on this separate and independent ground.
Defendant is out of custody and agrees to this recommended continuance. The parties continue to work on resolving this matter prior to trial. Further, counsel for the government cleared the requested continuance date with its key witnesses, the defense and chambers. Counsel for the parties both also identified this continuance date through a review of their respective trial calendars.
For the above stated reasons, the stipulated continuance will conserve time and resources both for the parties and the court, and the delay resulting from this continuance shall be excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § § 3161(h)(7)(A).
ORDER
IT IS SO ORDERED.