Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

U.S. v. Tomczykowska, CR 18-00046 JST. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20180618693 Visitors: 4
Filed: Jun. 15, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 15, 2018
Summary: AMENDED STIPULATION SEEKING CONTINUANCE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND [PROPOSED ORDER] JON S. TIGAR , District Judge . The parties hereby request that the status hearing date of July 6, 2018, presently scheduled at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, be vacated and the matter be reset for July 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel have conferred and the assigned Assistant United States Attorney is available on the latter date. The undersigned counsel recently substi
More

AMENDED STIPULATION SEEKING CONTINUANCE AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND [PROPOSED ORDER]

The parties hereby request that the status hearing date of July 6, 2018, presently scheduled at 9:30 a.m. before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, be vacated and the matter be reset for July 20, 2018 at 9:30 a.m. Counsel have conferred and the assigned Assistant United States Attorney is available on the latter date.

The undersigned counsel recently substituted into this case and met with Ms. Tomczykowska for the first time. The undersigned will also be at a conference out of the district from June 18-30. Defendant's counsel therefore requests a brief continuance of two weeks to complete review of the discovery provided in this case, and to resume conversations with the assigned Assistant United States Attorney regarding a possible resolution of this matter.

Defendant's counsel represents that he has fully informed his client of her Speedy Trial rights and that, to his knowledge, his client understands those rights and agrees to waive them. Defendant's counsel further believes that his clients' decision to give up the right to be brought to trial earlier than if time were not excluded from the Speedy Trial Act is an informed and voluntary one.

The parties agree and stipulate that time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from July 6, 2018, to July 20, 2018, under 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(1)(G) and 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv), for effective preparation of defense counsel while further investigation is conducted, legal research is performed, and defense counsel discusses the case with his client and for continuity of counsel.

ORDER

Based on the assertions and agreement of the parties as set forth in the parties' filed Stipulation dated June 14, 2018, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the above-captioned matter is continued to July 20, 2018, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Jon S. Tigar, for further status.

The Court further finds that failing to exclude time from June 14, 2018 to July 20, 2018, would unreasonably deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence and continuity of defense counsel. 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends of justice served by excluding the time between now and July 20, 2018, from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Accordingly, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the time between July 6, 2018 and the July 20, 2018 appearance shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 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