Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

U.S. v. Krasnuik, 18-CR-00304 RS. (2018)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20181126888 Visitors: 15
Filed: Nov. 21, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 21, 2018
Summary: STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 27, 2018 THROUGH JANUARY 8, 2019 RICHARD SEEBORG , District Judge . The parties are to appear before the Court for a status conference on November 27, 2018. The Government has provided discovery to Defendant. Counsel for Defendant has hired an investigator to assist her and is still investigating certain matters to aid in her client's case. Additionally, the parties have been discussing potential res
More

STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE AND EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 27, 2018 THROUGH JANUARY 8, 2019

The parties are to appear before the Court for a status conference on November 27, 2018. The Government has provided discovery to Defendant. Counsel for Defendant has hired an investigator to assist her and is still investigating certain matters to aid in her client's case. Additionally, the parties have been discussing potential resolutions to this case. The parties are requesting the Court to continue the matter until January 8, 2019. By then, the parties will know whether the case can be resolved.

Accordingly, the parties agree that additional time is necessary for effective preparation of counsel. The parties agree that the time between November 27, 2018 to January 8, 2019 should be excluded in order to provide reasonable time necessary for the effective preparation of counsel pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court orders that the case be continued from November 27, 2018 to January 8, 2019 and finds that the exclusion of time from November 27, 2018 to January 8, 2019 is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny effective preparation of counsel, 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