Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. PISARSKI, 3-13-70019 MAG JSC. (2013)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20130411867 Visitors: 10
Filed: Apr. 09, 2013
Latest Update: Apr. 09, 2013
Summary: STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DEFENDANTS' WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. 3161(b), FROM APRIL 11, 2013 TO MAY 23, 2013 JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge. With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court enters this order scheduling an arraignment or preliminary hearing date of April 11, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and documenting the defendants' waiver of the
More

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER TO DEFENDANTS' WAIVER OF PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), FROM APRIL 11, 2013 TO MAY 23, 2013

JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY, Magistrate Judge.

With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court enters this order scheduling an arraignment or preliminary hearing date of April 11, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and documenting the defendants' waiver of the preliminary hearing date under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), from April 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013.

The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:

1. The defendants have both been released from custody pursuant to conditions imposed by a court in the Eastern District of California.

2. The defendants agree to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv) to provide reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The government is continuing to produce discovery in the case, and defense counsel needs time to review the discovery.

3. The defendants exclude the period from April 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013 for purposes of setting the preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1.

4. Counsel for the defendants believe that postponing the preliminary hearing is in their clients' best interest, and that it is not in their clients' interest for the United States to indict the case during the normal time period established in Rule 5.1.

5. The Court finds that, taking into the account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, these grounds are good cause for extending the time limits for a preliminary hearing under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1. Given these circumstances, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from April 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

6. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendants, the Court (1) sets a preliminary hearing date before the duty magistrate judge on April 11, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., and (2) orders that the period from April 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013, be excluded from the time period for preliminary hearings under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).

SO STIPULATED.

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court sets an arraignment or preliminary hearing date of May 23, 2013 at 9:30 a.m. before the duty magistrate judge, and documenting the defendants' waiver of the preliminary hearing date under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 and the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), from April 11, 2013 to May 23, 2013. The Court finds that the exclusion of the time limits applicable under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c) from the date of this Order through May 23, 2013, is warranted; that exclusion of this period from the time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161 is warranted; that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendants in the prompt disposition of this criminal case; and that the failure to grant the requested exclusion of time would deny counsel for the defendants and for the government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

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