Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

United States v. Freitas, 2:18-CR-00165-TLN. (2019)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20190926746 Visitors: 5
Filed: Sep. 25, 2019
Latest Update: Sep. 25, 2019
Summary: STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER TROY L. NUNLEY , District Judge . STIPULATION 1. By previous order, this matter was set for a trial confirmation hearing on December 5, 2019, and a trial on January 13, 2020. ECF 32. 2. By this stipulation, the defendant, Candice Freitas, now moves to continue the trial confirmation hearing to March 12, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., and the jury trial to April 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between
More

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

STIPULATION

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a trial confirmation hearing on December 5, 2019, and a trial on January 13, 2020. ECF 32.

2. By this stipulation, the defendant, Candice Freitas, now moves to continue the trial confirmation hearing to March 12, 2020, at 9:30 a.m., and the jury trial to April 20, 2020, at 9:00 a.m., and to exclude time between December 5, 2019, and April 20, 2020, under Local Code T4.

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

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this case includes investigative reports, subpoena returns, financial records, bank statements, and related documents in electronic form, including over 2,000 pages of documents and dozens of videos and photos. Discovery also includes physical evidence including access cards, checks, IDs, passports, and counterfeit U.S. Postal Service keys. All of this discovery has been either produced directly to counsel and/or made available for inspection and copying. b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to review and analyze the discovery, consult with his client, conduct additional investigation and research related to the charges, discuss potential resolutions with his/her client, and to otherwise prepare for trial. c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him and the defendant 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) 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 December 5, 2019, to April 20, 2020, 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 defendant'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.

Dated: September 24, 2019 McGREGOR W. SCOTT United States Attorney /s/ ROBERT J. ARTUZ ROBERT J. ARTUZ Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Dated: September 24, 2019 /s/ WILLIAM BONHAM (with permission) WILLIAM BONHAM Counsel for Defendant Candice Freitas

FINDINGS AND 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