Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Vasquez-Heraz, 2:14-CR-00276 JAM. (2016)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20160718808 Visitors: 9
Filed: Jul. 14, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 14, 2016
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 2, 2016. 2. By this stipulation, the United States and defendant PORFIRIO VASQUEZ-HERAZ only, now move to vacate the status conference, set this matter for change of plea on August 16, 2016, and to exclude time between August 2, 2016 and August 16, 2016, under Local Codes T2 and T4. 3. The par
More

STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on August 2, 2016.

2. By this stipulation, the United States and defendant PORFIRIO VASQUEZ-HERAZ only, now move to vacate the status conference, set this matter for change of plea on August 16, 2016, and to exclude time between August 2, 2016 and August 16, 2016, under Local Codes T2 and T4.

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:

a. This case involves thirteen co-defendants. The United States has produced discovery containing approximately 14,000 pages of reports and pictures, 5 DVD's containing videos, and 1 CD containing multiple audio files. The Superseding Indictment alleges that the crimes alleged occurred in at least four counties and two judicial districts. Based on these facts, the case is unusual and complex within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and Local Code T2 and it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. b. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, interview potential witnesses, and discuss the plea agreement and potential consequences with his client. c. Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. d. The government does not object to the continuance. e. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. f. Based on the above-stated facts, the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and the time period of August 2, 2016, up to and including August 16, 2016, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). g. Defense counsel is unavailable for the currently set August 2, 2016 status conference due to a conflict in his calendar and the Court should exclude time from the date of this stipulation, July 14, 2016, to the date of the new status conference, August 16, 2016, under 18 USC Section 3161(h)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T4 due to continuity of defense counsel.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

ORDER

IT IS SO FOUND AND 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