Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. DUSHANE, CR.S-11-cr-476 LKK. (2012)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20120921h46 Visitors: 7
Filed: Sep. 17, 2012
Latest Update: Sep. 17, 2012
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge. The parties appeared before the Court on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, in case number S-11-0476 LKK. At that time, based upon the representations and agreement of counsel, the Court ordered that the case be continued to Tuesday, November 14, 2012, at 9:15 a.m., and that the time beginning September 11, 2012, and extending through November 14, 2012, was excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. 3161. The exclusion o
More

ORDER

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON, District Judge.

The parties appeared before the Court on Tuesday, September 11, 2012, in case number S-11-0476 LKK. At that time, based upon the representations and agreement of counsel, the Court ordered that the case be continued to Tuesday, November 14, 2012, at 9:15 a.m., and that the time beginning September 11, 2012, and extending through November 14, 2012, was excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. § 3161.

The exclusion of time is appropriate due to the defense counsels' need to prepare. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4. A continuance is necessary in this case in order to ensure defense counsel has a reasonable amount of time to review the evidence given the limitations imposed by Congress. Defense counsel stated on the record that, in addition to reviewing the discovery produced by the government, he intends to have his client undergo a psychiatric evaluation. Accordingly, a continuance is also necessary to ensure defense counsels' effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv); Local Code T4.

ACCORDINGLY, it is hereby ordered that this case is continued to Tuesday, November 14, 2012, at 9:15 a.m., and that the time beginning September 11, 2012, and extending through November 14, 2012, be excluded from the calculation of time under the Speedy Trial Act. The Court finds that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

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