The opinion of the court was delivered by: The Honorable John A. Mendez United States District Court Judge
STIPULATION AND ORDER CONTINUING STATUS CONFERENCE REASONS FOR REQUEST
Defense counsel desires additional time to explain to his client the ramifications of the pre-plea presentence report and to investigate whether the report's recommendations were calculated correctly. This task is made more difficult because, while defendant is mentally competent within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 4241, he requires additional time and explanation to fully grasp all of the information contained in the report. In addition, both the United States and the defense desire additional time to negotiate and settle this matter, and to avoid the necessity of a jury trial. Because of defense counsel's trial schedule and the need to give sufficient time for the parties to accomplish what needs to be done, both parties are requesting a continuance of the status conference to May 12, 2009.
It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties through their respective counsel that the status conference in the above-entitled case presently set for Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 9:00 a.m. be continued without appearance, for the reasons set forth above, to Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
The parties further stipulate that time included in this continuance be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, from March 27, 2009, through May 12, 2009, on the ground that the case is so unusual or so complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act and for defense preparation for reasons described in this stipulation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii) and (iv), and (Local Codes T2 and T4).
Mr. Samuel Wong, Esq. (by RMH) Assistant United States Attorney Counsel the United States
GOOD CAUSE APPEARING and upon the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the status conference in the above-entitled case, presently scheduled for Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 9:30 a.m., be continued without appearance to Tuesday, May 12, 2009 at 9:30 a.m.
Based on the stipulation of the parties and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that:
(1) given defendant's special needs, the case is unusual or so complex that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by the Speedy Trial Act; and
(2) the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time for effective preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court specifically finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is further ordered that time from March 27, 2009, to and including May 12, 2009, be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act exclusion sections set forth in the stipulation above.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw ...