Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Orozco

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


November 7, 2008

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JHON JAIRO OROZCO, ET AL., DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hayes, Judge

ORDER

The matter before the Court is the period of excludable delay pursuant to Section 3161(h) of the Speedy Trial Act.

On June 19, 2008, this Court granted the motion to declare this case complex and exclude time pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) filed by Defendant Jhon Jairo Orozco. (Doc. # 52). The Court stated in part: "Based upon the complex nature of this proceedings which involves multiple defendants from several countries, defendants named in multiple prosecutions, and a very large volume of discovery, the Court concludes that it would be unreasonable to expect defense counsel to be able to adequately prepare for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established under Section 3161, et seq., taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The discovery in this case which results from an investigation involving hundreds of potential targets from several countries includes thousands of pages of documents, over one hundred compact disks containing thousands of pages of line sheets and hundreds of intercepted phone calls in Spanish, as well as multiple DVD's of video surveillance. The Court concludes that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweighs the best interest of the public and the Defendants in a speedy trial." (Doc. # 52).

On November 3, 2008, this Court held a status conference with all Defendants and all counsel present. All parties agreed that discovery continued to proceed expeditiously and that an additional period of time was required to review the discovery prior to setting any dates for motions and trial. All parties and their counsel requested that the Court set a further status conference for February 2, 2009 and agreed that the period of time between November 3, 2008 and February 2, 2009 should be excluded pursuant to Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii).

Section 3161(h)(8)(A) provides that the Court may exclude any period of delay resulting from a continuance "if the judge granted the continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." Factors which a judge shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph (A) include "[w]hether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established..." Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii). "[N]o continuance period may be excluded unless the court makes reasonably explicit findings that demonstrate that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance do, in fact, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." United States v. Perez-Reveles, 715 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1983).

Based upon the request of all Defendants and the complex nature of this proceedings which involves multiple defendants from several countries, defendants named in multiple prosecutions, and a large volume of discovery much of which requires translation, the Court concludes that it would be unreasonable to expect defense counsel to be able to adequately prepare for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established under Section 3161, et seq., taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a period of excludable delay from November 3, 2008 to February 2, 2009 is allowed pursuant to Section 3161(h)(8), in addition to any time excludable pursuant to Section 3161(h)(1)(F). This period of excludable delay applies to all defendants in this case pursuant to Section 3161(h)(7). A further hearing is scheduled in this matter for Monday, February 2, 2009 at 2 p.m.

WILLIAM Q. HAYES United States District Judge

20081107

© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.