U.S. v. Jaclin, CR 17-00281 RS. (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180308807
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 07, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 07, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The parties request that the time between February 27, 2018 and May 15, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). The government has produced approximately 1 million pages of discovery to defendant and defense counsel is continuing to review it. Excluding time until May 15, 2018, will allow for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the n
Summary: STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The parties request that the time between February 27, 2018 and May 15, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). The government has produced approximately 1 million pages of discovery to defendant and defense counsel is continuing to review it. Excluding time until May 15, 2018, will allow for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the na..
More
STIPULATION TO EXCLUDE TIME AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
RICHARD SEEBORG, District Judge.
The parties request that the time between February 27, 2018 and May 15, 2018, be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B). The government has produced approximately 1 million pages of discovery to defendant and defense counsel is continuing to review it. Excluding time until May 15, 2018, will allow for the effective preparation of counsel, taking into account the nature of the prosecution and the particular complexity of this case, and the ends of justice served by this delay outweigh the defendant's and the public's interest in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), (iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
[PROPOSED] ORDER
The Court finds that the exclusion of the period from February 27, 2018, to May 15, 2018, 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 defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation and of counsel, taking into account the particular complexity of the case and the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii), (iv).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
