Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Vanbeek, 2:19-cr-00029-JAM. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190328971 Visitors: 15
Filed: Mar. 27, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 27, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, through Assistant United States Attorney Amy Hitchcock, attorney for Plaintiff, Federal Defender Heather Williams through Assistant Federal Defender Mia Crager, attorney for defendant CRISTINA VANBEEK and Kyle R. Knapp attorney for defendant MITCHELL VANBEEK that the status conference, currently scheduled for April 2, 2019, b
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between McGregor W. Scott, United States Attorney, through Assistant United States Attorney Amy Hitchcock, attorney for Plaintiff, Federal Defender Heather Williams through Assistant Federal Defender Mia Crager, attorney for defendant CRISTINA VANBEEK and Kyle R. Knapp attorney for defendant MITCHELL VANBEEK that the status conference, currently scheduled for April 2, 2019, be continued to June 18, 2019 at 9:15 a.m.

The reasons for this continuance is that the parties are currently working out the terms of a protective order governing the discovery in this case. The government has represented that the discovery is voluminous, and defense will need time to examine discovery and review it with their clients.

Counsel for defendants also requires additional time to consult with their clients, review the charges, conduct investigation and research related to the charges, and to otherwise prepare for trial. Counsel for defendants believe failure to grant the requested continuance would deny them the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded of this order's date through and including June 18, 2018; pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and General Order 479, Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.

Counsel and the defendants also agree that the ends of justice served by the Court granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, the Court, having received, read, and considered the parties' stipulation, and good cause appearing therefore, adopts the parties' stipulation in its entirety as its order. The Court specifically finds 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 the ends of justice are served by granting the requested continuance and outweigh the best interests of the public and defendant in a speedy trial.

The Court orders the time from the date the parties stipulated, up to and including June 18, 2019, 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)(iv) [reasonable time for counsel to prepare] and General Order 479, (Local Code T4). It is further ordered the April 2, 2019 status conference shall be continued until June 18, 2019, at 9:15 a.m.

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