U.S. v. Payan-Cruz, CR18-0278-JCC. (2019)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20190103c61
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jan. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Jan. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' stipulated motion to continue trial and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 35). Having thoroughly considered the filings, and based on the facts set forth in the parties' stipulated motion, the Court FINDS as follows: 1. That a failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within t
Summary: ORDER JOHN C. COUGHENOUR , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on the parties' stipulated motion to continue trial and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 35). Having thoroughly considered the filings, and based on the facts set forth in the parties' stipulated motion, the Court FINDS as follows: 1. That a failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within th..
More
ORDER
JOHN C. COUGHENOUR, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on the parties' stipulated motion to continue trial and the pretrial motions deadline (Dkt. No. 35). Having thoroughly considered the filings, and based on the facts set forth in the parties' stipulated motion, the Court FINDS as follows:
1. That a failure to grant a continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) and would result in a miscarriage of justice, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
2. That this case is sufficiently complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
3. That the ends of justice will be served by ordering a continuance in this case, that a continuance is necessary to ensure adequate time for effective case preparation, and that these factors outweigh the best interests of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
For these reasons, the parties' stipulated motion (Dkt. No. 35) is GRANTED. The Court ORDERS that the trial in this matter be continued to April 15, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. The parties shall file any pretrial motions no later than March 1, 2019. It is further ORDERED that the time between the date of this order and the new trial date is excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.
Source: Leagle
