IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
December 17, 2008
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF,
MARY MARGARET DONNELLY, AKA MARY M. WITTEKIND; AND MICHAEL GALEN DONNELLY, AKA MICHAEL G. HUBBS, AKA MIKE HUBBS; DEFENDANTS.
ORDER SETTING NEW TRAIL DATE AND FINDING EXCLUDABLE TIME
This matter came on for a specially-set status conference on December 8, 2008, in the courtroom of the Honorable Lawrence K. Karlton. Bruce Locke, Esq., appeared on behalf of defendant, Mary Margaret Donnelly, who was personally present. Assistant Federal Defender Dennis Waks appeared on behalf of defendant, Michael Galen Donnelly, who was personally present. Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell L. Carlberg appeared on behalf of the United States. Mr. Waks informed the Court that his client requested new counsel be appointed and that the Office of the Federal Defender requested to be relieved as counsel fo record for defendant Michael Galen Donnelly. Attorney John Balazs was present in court and was substituted in as counsel of record for defendant Michael Galen Donnelly. Mr. Balazs represented to the Court that he needed time to learn the case and to prepare for trial and could not be ready by the current trial date of January 27, 2009. Mr. Locke also represented that he needed additional time to prepare for trial.
Accordingly, upon motion of the defendants, the Court vacated the January 27, 2009 trial date in this case and reset the trial date for April 28, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The trial confirmation hearing was reset for April 14, 2009 at 09:15 a.m. in Courtroom 4 before Senior Judge Lawrence K. Karlton. The government has provided hundreds of pages of discovery to the defendants, along with audio recordings and photographs which will need to be reviewed by defense counsel. The continuance is necessary for counsel adequately to review the discovery provided by the government, go over the discovery with their clients and to conduct further investigation in the case. Thus, the requested continuance is for effective and diligent preparation of counsel.
The Court finds that the interests of justice served by granting this continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161 (h)(8)(B)(iv) (local code T-4) and time, therefore, will be excluded as to both defendants from December 8, 2008 through April 28, 2009.
© 1992-2008 VersusLaw Inc.