Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Jones, CR 17-00164 JST. (2017)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20170627958 Visitors: 17
Filed: Jun. 26, 2017
Latest Update: Jun. 26, 2017
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM JUNE 23, 2017 THROUGH JULY 14, 2017 JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . Plaintiff United States of America and defendant Marcus L. Jones, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. On June 23, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for the second District Court appearance in this case. The parties reported to the Court that they have made considerable progress towards a resolution of the case, b
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM JUNE 23, 2017 THROUGH JULY 14, 2017

Plaintiff United States of America and defendant Marcus L. Jones, by and through their respective counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows:

1. On June 23, 2017, the parties appeared before the Court for the second District Court appearance in this case. The parties reported to the Court that they have made considerable progress towards a resolution of the case, but needed additional time to finalize some of the details. The defense also recently requested additional discovery, which the government will produce shortly. Pursuant to the parties' request, the Court set the matter for a change of plea or motions/trial setting hearing on July 14, 2017.

2. The parties jointly stipulated to exclude the time from June 23, 2017, through July 14, 2017, from the time in which the defendant must be brought to trial pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. The government produced discovery in this case on May 5, 2017, and the defense recently requested additional discovery regarding one of the firearms seized in this case. The government requires time investigate whether such discovery exists and, if it does exist and is discoverable, the defense will need time to review the discovery and discuss the case with Mr. Jones. The parties also continue to finalize plea negotiations. Therefore, the parties agree that the time period from June 23, 2017, through July 14, 2017, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv) on the basis that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial, and failing to exclude this time would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

Based upon the representations of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court finds that failing to exclude the time from June 23, 2017, through July 14, 2017, would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time from June 23, 2017, through July 14, 2017, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the matter is set before this Court on June 23, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. for a change of plea hearing, and that the time from June 23, 2017, through July 14, 2017, shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).

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