Filed: Oct. 23, 2018
Latest Update: Oct. 23, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Defendant, Sequioya Harris, by and through her counsel, Toni White, defendant John A. Owens, Jr., by and through his counsel, Kresta Daly, defendant Dionne M. Thomas, by and through her counsel, Robert Wilson, defendant Jose E. Rodriquez, Jr., by and through his counsel, Olaf Hedberg, and the Government, by and through its counsel, Christopher S. Hales, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Defendant, Sequioya Harris, by and through her counsel, Toni White, defendant John A. Owens, Jr., by and through his counsel, Kresta Daly, defendant Dionne M. Thomas, by and through her counsel, Robert Wilson, defendant Jose E. Rodriquez, Jr., by and through his counsel, Olaf Hedberg, and the Government, by and through its counsel, Christopher S. Hales, hereby stipulate as follows: 1. By previous order, this matter was set for status o..
More
STIPULATION AND ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Defendant, Sequioya Harris, by and through her counsel, Toni White, defendant John A. Owens, Jr., by and through his counsel, Kresta Daly, defendant Dionne M. Thomas, by and through her counsel, Robert Wilson, defendant Jose E. Rodriquez, Jr., by and through his counsel, Olaf Hedberg, and the Government, by and through its counsel, Christopher S. Hales, hereby stipulate as follows:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on October 23, 2018
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the status conference until December 4, 2018 at 9:15 a.m, and to exclude time between October 23, 2018, and December 4, 2018, under Local Code T4.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following:
a) The government has provided additional discovery in this matter that counsel for the defendants are still reviewing. The discovery associated with this case is at 32,501 bates stamped pages consisting of voluminous tax and bank records as well as audio and video discovery. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. The parties are discussing the setting of trial dates and will be prepared to request such from the Court at the next appearance.
b) Counsel for the defendants desire this time to continue to review the discovery and analyze the same, to consult with their clients, to review the current charges, to conduct investigation and research related to the charges, to review the discovery, and to discuss potential resolutions with their clients and otherwise prepare for trial.
c) Counsel for the defendants believe that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny them 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 defendants in a trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
f) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of October 23, 2018 to December 4, 2018, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendants's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
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
The Court, having received, read and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial. The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, up to and including December 4, 2018, 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)(B)(iv) T4 (reasonable time for counsel to prepare) as to all defendants. It is further ordered that the October 23, 2018 status conference shall be continued until December 4, 2018, at 9:15 a.m.
