Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Clardy, 1:17-cr-00217 LJO-SKO. (2018)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20181003a39 Visitors: 10
Filed: Oct. 01, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 01, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; ORDER (N.B. 20 th due to holiday) LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL , Chief District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Melanie Alsworth, counsel for Plaintiff, and Assistant Federal Defender Megan T. Hopkins, counsel for Defendant Kyle Clardy, that the trial set for November 27, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., may be continued to February 19, 2019 at 8:30 a.m. The reason for this contin
More

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DATE; ORDER (N.B. 20th due to holiday)

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties through their respective counsel, Assistant United States Attorney Melanie Alsworth, counsel for Plaintiff, and Assistant Federal Defender Megan T. Hopkins, counsel for Defendant Kyle Clardy, that the trial set for November 27, 2018 at 8:30 a.m., may be continued to February 19, 2019 at 8:30 a.m.

The reason for this continuance is that the parties anticipate a superseding or separate indictment to be filed which will likely change the trajectory of the case. The continuance will allow additional time for defense investigation and plea negotiations in light of the anticipated additional charges.

Based on the foregoing the parties agree that the ends of justice served by resetting the trial date outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore the parties agree that time is excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A), (B)(iv).

ORDER

The Court has reviewed and considered the stipulation of the parties to continue the trial in this case. Good cause appearing, the jury trial currently set for November 27, 2018, is continued to February 20, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. (due to the holiday that week). The time period between November 27, 2018 and February 20, 2019 is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(i) and (iv), as the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

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