The opinion of the court was delivered by: D. Lowell Jensen Senior United States District Judge
Hearing Date: October 16, 2009 Requested Date: November 6, 2009
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS HEARING
The above-captioned matter is set on October 16, 2009, before this Court for a status hearing. The parties jointly request that this Court continue the matter to November 6, 2009 at 9:00 a.m., and that the Court exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(H)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), between the date of this stipulation and November 6, 2009.
Both defendants are charged with conspiracy to steal public money and theft of public money. Mr. Ralph E. King is also charged with making certain false statements to obtain federal employee benefits. Ralph King is in custody currently serving a state sentence; Raphael King is also now in custody.
The current status of the case is that the government has produced additional discovery and the defense is still reviewing this discovery and conducting it's investigation. The defense requires additional time to complete it's investigation.
The parties agree that the failure to grant such a continuance would unreasonably deny counsel for the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The parties further stipulate and agree that the time from October 16, 2009 to November 6, 2009, should be excluded in accordance with the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) for effective preparation of counsel.
DAVID WARD Assistant United States Attorney
SETH P. CHAZIN Counsel for Ralph E. King
ANGELA M. HANSEN Assistant Federal Public Defender Counsel for Raphael King
Based on the reasons provided in the stipulation of the parties above, the Court hereby finds that the ends of justice served by the continuance requested herein outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial because the failure to grant the continuance would deny counsel for the defendants the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court makes this finding because ...