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. Bernard

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION


March 10, 2009

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
BRANDON BERNARD, DEFENDANT.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Maxine Chesney

[PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE

Current Hearing Date: March 11, 2009

Time: 2:30 p.m.

Proposed Hearing Date: April 1, 2009

Time: 2:30 p.m.

The above-captioned case is currently scheduled for a status conference on Wednesday, March 11, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. At the last appearance, the parties advised the Court that they were waiting for the results of DNA testing, and that the results of that testing would drive the possible resolution of the case.

The DNA testing is now complete, and has led to the arrest of a second person in this incident -- Stephen Grady. Mr. Grady has been charged by a complaint (CR 09-70193-MAG), and the government intends to seek a superseding indictment in this case -- joining Mr. Grady and the defendant, Mr. Bernard, in a single indictment.

Therefore, the parties jointly request that the date for the status conference in this case be continued until Wednesday, April 1, 2008 at 2:30 p.m. so that the status of the case can be determined in light of the new superseding indictment sought by the government. The government expects that both Mr. Grady and Mr. Bernard will be before the Court at that time.

Further, the parties stipulate and jointly request that time be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from Wednesday, March 11 through Wednesday, April 1, 2009 for effective preparation and continuity of counsel. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A).

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT IMPLICATIONS

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161, and Crim. Loc. Rule 47-2(c), there are sixty-seven (67) days remaining before the trial in this case must commence. Taking the stipulated time exclusion from from Wednesday, March 11 through Wednesday, April 1, 2009 into account, the "speedy trial" date for this matter is June 7, 2009.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

DATED JOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLO United States Attorney Northern District of California

MATTHEW L. McCARTHY Assistant United States Attorney

LOREN STEWART Assistant Federal Public Defender Attorney for Brandon Bernard

For good cause shown, the status conference now scheduled for Wednesday, March 11, 2009 is vacated. The matter shall be added to the Court's calendar on Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. for status and possible change of plea.

In addition, for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from March 11, 2009 through April 1, 2009 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. See 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(8)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). Taking the exclusion of time from March 11, 2009 through April 1, 2009 into account, the "speedy trial" date for this matter is June 7, 2009.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

HON. MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Court Judge

20090310

© 1992-2009 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.