The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Lawrence J. O'Neill
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender ERIC V. KERSTEN, Bar #226429 Assistant Federal Defender 2300 Tulare Street, Suite 330 Fresno, California 93721-2226 Telephone: (559) 487-5561 Attorney for Defendant Timothy David Bodine
Date: February 18, 2011 Time: 8:30 a.m.
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERENCE AND ORDER THEREON
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, DAVID L. GAPPA, Assistant United States Attorney, and ERIC V. KERSTEN, Assistant Federal Defender, counsel for Defendant Timothy David Bodine, that the date for status conference may be continued to February 18, 2011, or the soonest date thereafter that is convenient to the court.This matter is currently set for trial on July 18, 2011. The proposed continuance pertains solely to the January 28, 2011 status conference. The trial date will remain unchanged. The date currently set for status conference is January 28, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. The requested new date is February 18, 2011 at 8:30 a.m. The July 18, 2011 trial date will remain unchanged.
On December 17, 2010 this matter was set for trial on July 18, 2011. The January 28, 2011 status conference was also scheduled at that time. The parties intended to either enter a plea agreement on January 28, 2011 or, if no agreement was reached, to request a pretrial motion schedule at that time. In November 2010, the defense retained an expert to conduct a forensic evaluation of the evidence in this case. However, due to the holidays and unanticipated delays, that evaluation will not be continued until the week of January 31, 2011. Efforts to reach a negotiated settlement in the matter are ongoing. The continuance is requested to allow Mr. Bodine to make a fully informed decision regarding how to proceed in this matter. The proposed continuance will have no effect on the July 18. 2011 trial date.
The parties agree that the delay resulting from the continuance shall be excluded as necessary for effective defense preparation pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv). For this reason, the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
ORDER Good cause exists and the request is granted. The intervening period of delay is excluded in the interests of justice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...