MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Pursuant to Local Criminal Rule ("LCR") 16-1(a)(1) and (2), counsel for the United States, DAYLE ELIESON, United States Attorney for the District of Nevada, James E. Keller, Assistant United States Attorney; and Christopher P. Frey, Esq., Assistant Federal Public Defender, counsel for defendant Jose Valentin Mora; Loren Graham, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Sandy Diaz Tavares; Scott Edwards, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Javier Chavez; Janice Hubbard, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Shawn Curl; Theresa Ristenpart, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Marcos Antonio Hernandez-Cisneros; Kathleen Bliss, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Robert Mora-Mora; Dennis Cameron, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Juan Baca; Cheryl Field-Lang, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Richard Rossall; Steve Sexton, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Ciarra Hernandez; Richard Molezzo, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Marco Antonio Ramirez; Paul Wolfe, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Leon DeJesus Munera; Kenneth Stover, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Kelsea Barbara Riley; Maysoun Fletcher, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Jorge Ayala-Chavez; John Arrascada, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Alberto Beto Acosta-Macias; and Michael Kennedy, Esq., Counsel for Defendant Dagoberto Mora-Silva; file this proposed joint complex case schedule in the above-referenced cases.
First and foremost, the parties acknowledge the Court's Order of September 5, 2018 (ECF No. # 179) in 3:18-cr-00057-MMD-WGC. This joint proposed complex case schedule is submitted in response to it as the parties' joint status report, with the hope that the schedule meets the Court's questions as raised in its Order. In addition, this proposed Complex Case Schedule is also filed seeking an Order "fixing the schedule for discovery, pretrial motions, and trial." LCR 16-1(a)(1)-(a)(4).
The parties have provided this Complex Case Schedule and a proposed Order for the Court pursuant to LCR 16-1(a)(3) & (a)(4). Finally, pursuant to Local Rule 16-1(a)(4) and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161 et seq. ("the Speedy Trial Act"), the Order should include a determination that the period until trial shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial must commence.
The purpose of the Complex Case Schedule is to provide a predictable framework for pre-trial disclosure of information, to establish a method for resolution of discovery disputes without the need for Court intervention, and to provide a means for the well-informed and efficient resolution of all the cases listed above. The Complex Case Schedule is not intended to create remedies not otherwise available to the parties under the U.S. Constitution, statutes, or the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Nor is it intended to serve as a basis for allegations of misconduct or other claims for relief.
This schedule applies to all pending and related cases, namely, cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD, and 3:18-cr-60-MMD. The defendants at this time agree that case 3:18-cr-57-MMD should proceed first to trial and defendants in all related cases do not wish to proceed to trial in any of the related cases prior to trial in 3:18-cr-57-MMD.
The parties have not yet made any determination as to how to group the 17-currently charged defendants in 3:18-cr-57-MMD because the government, and at least some of the other parties, believe not all 17 defendants will proceed to trial in that case. The government will enter good-faith plea negotiations with counsel for any defendants who may be seeking resolution of their clients' cases short of trial prior to the dispositive motion filing deadline.
The parties respectfully reserve the opportunity to file a motion with the Court as to possible groupings, if necessary, of remaining defendants in this case for trial no later than 30 days after dispositive motions are due.
Defendants have had their initial arraignments and the Court entered their pleas of not guilty to the charges in the Indictment returned by a federal grand jury in the District of Nevada between June 27, 2018, and September 19, 2018. A few defendants have not yet been arraigned on the Indictment in this case to date, such as Jose Vega, Angel Diaz, and Francisco Mesa. The defendants are joined for trial under the Speedy Trial Act.
Under
Counsel for each defendant and the government agree that 3:18-cr-57-MMD is a complex case within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and LCR 16(a)(1) in that: (1) the Indictment contains fifteen (15) counts and charges seventeen (17) defendants, (2) there are related cases involving some of the same defendants and/or involving some the same wiretapped phones, pending before this Court under 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD; (3) the government has provided a substantial amount of discovery to defendants, including, inter alia, intercepted wire and electronic communications over two cell phones alleged to be used by defendant Jose Valentin Mora, pole camera footage, the Facebook account of Jose Valentin Mora, recorded communications relating to controlled purchases of controlled substances and of a firearm, and reports and pictures relating to premises searched and items seized in this case. In addition, many of the intercepted communications provided are in the Spanish language. Based upon the volume of discovery, the number of defendants in this case (and in related) cases, the nature of the charges in this case involving the federal wiretaps of two cell phones, and on good cause shown, the parties request that the Court find and designate this case as complex pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) and LCR 16-1(a)(1). The following schedule encompasses further discovery in anticipation of trial in the case, 3:18cr-57-MMD, set for June 4, 2019. Government disclosure statements remain in effect in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, and 3:18-cr-60-MMD.
The Court has already set a trial date of June 4, 2019, pursuant to the parties' stipulation previously filed with the Court for case 3:18-cr-57-MMD and in all of the related cases listed above. The parties anticipate that the trial will last approximately a month, should most of the defendants proceed to trial, in 3:18-cr-57-MMD-WGC. Each of the related cases should not last nearly as long, should they proceed, depending on the outcomes of 3:18-cr-57-MMD-WGC.
The defendants believe that trial in 3:18-cr-57-MMD-WGC should proceed first, with all defendants in case 3:18-cr-57-MMD-WGC and in related cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD-WGC, 3:18-cr-56-MMD-WGC and 3:18-cr-60-MMD-WGC waiving their respective rights to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. for effective preparation by counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and in the interests of justice, which outweigh the interests of the defendant and of the public in a Speedy Trial, under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv) to June 4, 2019, the current trial date, in each of the aforementioned cases. By their counsel's signatures hereto, none of the defendants in case ending -57 or in related cases ending in -53, -55, -56 and/or -60 wish to proceed to trial until after the -57 case proceeds to trial.
The parties propose that the government shall meet and continue to meet its obligation, to disclose and provide the following:
The parties acknowledge a duty to make good faith efforts to meet and confer with each other to resolve informally any dispute over the scope, manner and method of disclosures before seeking relief from the Court. A breach of the duty to meet and confer, by either party, may serve as a basis to grant or deny any subsequent motion for appropriate relief made before the Court. If the parties are unable to agree or resolve disputes after good faith efforts to do so, the parties propose the following pretrial motions schedule for both discovery motions and other motions:
The parties agree:
The parties agree to the following schedule for Motions in Limine:
7.
The parties agree to the following pre-trial phase:
If a majority of defendants proceed to trial, the parties anticipate the period of time for trial in this case to run approximately one month.
The parties agree that this Complex Case Schedule may be modified, subject to the Court's approval, in whole or in part in writing by all parties' signatures thereto.
A party may request an extension of any of the foregoing deadlines from the opposing parties for good cause. If, notwithstanding their good faith to do so, the parties do not reach agreement as to any requested extension, a party may apply for leave from the Court.
This Stipulation in cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD is entered into for the following reasons:
1. The parties agree that this case, 3:18-cr-57-MMD-WGC is complex, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or trial itself within the time limits established by Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161
2. The exclusion of time under the Speedy trial Act is also necessary for cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD because, even if, taken as a whole, the case is not so unusual or complex as to fall within 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), the failure to grant this exclusion would deny counsel for the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, in these multiple cases involving multiple defendants and/or Title III wiretaps over two cell phones. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
3. The failure to grant the exclusion of time requested would, given the facts and reasons set forth above, result in a miscarriage of justice, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i). Furthermore, in light of the foregoing facts, the interests in this exclusion of time outweighs the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
4. The parties agree and stipulate, for the foregoing reasons and pursuant to the statutory sections referenced above, that the time from the initially scheduled trial date of August 28, 2018, to the presently scheduled trial date of June 4, 2019 (for each case), shall be excluded in computing the time within which the trial of these offenses must commence under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and §§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and (iv) in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) in case 3:18-cr-57-MMD.
5. Undersigned defense counsel have spoken with their respective clients and have outlined the course of action described above. The defendants agree that additional time is absolutely necessary to guarantee their rights under the Sixth Amendment. Each defendant believes that his lawyers need the additional time to begin to investigate all potential defenses in this case, to conduct witness interviews and other trial preparation, and to otherwise effectively defend against the charges. Some of the defendants are in custody pending trial in this case, others have been released on personal recognizance without conditions; all of them have agreed that this additional time is necessary for the grounds set forth above.
6. Accordingly, the period of time from August 28, 2018 to June 4, 2019, is excluded in computing the time within which the trial herein must commence under the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(7)(A), (7)(B)(i), and (7)(B)(iv) in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD, and under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii) for case 3:18-cr-57-MMD.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
Pursuant to LCR 16-1(a)(4), and upon good cause shown, the Court adopts the schedule for discovery, pretrial motions and trial set forth in the foregoing Stipulation filed by the parties.
The Court hereby FINDS, based upon the reasons set forth in the foregoing Stipulation among the parties, incorporated herein by reference, that the case 3:18-cr-57-MMD is complex as defined in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), and that the ends of justice are served by the exclusions of time under the Speedy Trial Act to the trial date of June 4, 2019, in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD, outweighing, in each case, the defendants' and public's best interests in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). First, the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time under Speedy Trial Act in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD would fail to recognize that the 3:18cr-57-MMD case is a complex case under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(ii) due to the number of counts and number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, and the volume of discovery, and that the combination of all of the cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD is complex in itself. Second, the exclusion of time in each of cases 3:18cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD is necessary because the failure to do so would deny counsel for the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Third, based upon the facts set forth above, the failure to grant the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).
IT IS ORDERED that, consistent with the previous Order issued by this Court, the time from August 28, 2018, to June 4, 2019, is excluded in each of cases 3:18-cr-53-MMD, 3:18-cr-55-MMD, 3:18-cr-56-MMD, 3:18-cr-57-MMD and 3:18-cr-60-MMD under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (ii), and (iv).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, that the stipulated schedule by the parties in the foregoing Complex Case Schedule is adopted and so ordered by this Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
