The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Maxine M. Chesney United States District Judge
DECLARATION OF AFPD SHAWN HALBERT IN SUPPORT OF CONTINUING NEXT HEARING DATE AND [PROPOSED] ) ORDER CONTINUING HEARING DATE AND EXCLUDING TIME UNDER 18 U.S.C. § 3161 THEREON
I, Shawn Halbert, declare as follows:
1. I am an Assistant Federal Public Defender and I represent defendant Steven Adams in these matters.
2. The parties are scheduled to appear before this Court on February 17, 2010 for setting or change of plea. Mr. Adams was not brought to court at his last appearance because he was very ill.
3. Undersigned defense counsel visited Mr. Adams at Santa Rita Jail on Monday, February 15, 2010. While Mr. Adams was not as physically impaired as he was the last time that undersigned counsel visited him at Santa Rita Jail, he was still visibly ill and reports that he continues to have episodes of diarrhea and vomiting, so he is concerned about being brought on the U.S. Marshal van to the next court appearance.
4. At her client's request, undersigned defense counsel requests that the matter be continued for two weeks to March 3, 2010 (undersigned defense counsel is not requesting that the matter be put over one week until Wednesday, February 24, 2010 because she already has court before Judge Hamilton in Oakland and Judge Breyer in San Francisco on that day). Alternatively, the Court could waive Mr. Adams' presence at the next appearance and the parties could appear on February 17, 2010 without Mr. Adams being present, which Mr. Adams has told counsel would be acceptable to him.
5. At the next court appearance, the defense will request that Mr. Adams be referred within the Bureau of Prisons for a competency exam, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241. While Mr. Adams could be evaluated locally, defense counsel believes that a referral within the Bureau of Prisons makes more sense as Mr. Adams received treatment for mental health issues throughout the past nine years that he was incarcerated in the Bureau of Prisons. Mr. Adams joins counsel in this request.
6. The defense believes that the time between February 17, 2010 and March 3, 2010 should be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act. The continuance is necessary to assure the availability of the defendant and represents the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of counsel, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(3)(A) and (h)(7)(A) and (h)(7)(B)(iv), and the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
7. Undersigned defense counsel is submitting a declaration rather than a stipulation because government counsel previously indicated that he would not agree to any further continuances in the case and defense counsel has not been able to reach government counsel prior to filing this declaration.
I declare that the above is true and correct to the best of my knowledge.
SHAWN HALBERT Assistant Federal Public Defender
For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that the continuance of time for the next hearing before this Court from February 17, 2010 to March 3, 2010 is warranted in order to assure the availability of the defendant and because the failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant effective preparation of counsel; thus, the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best ...