The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. John A. Mendez United States District Judge
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST FOR WRITTEN ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT SEAN GJERDE'S MOTION TO SEVER; ORDER On January 11, 2011, the above-referenced matter came on before the Court for a hearing on Defendant Sean Gjerde's Motion to Sever (Docket, # 119). Counsel for Defendant Gjerde was not present. During the course of the hearing, the Court announced that the Motion to Sever was denied. Docket, # 123. The government respectfully requests the Court consider issuing an Order identifying the grounds for the denial of the motion.
To the extent the Court relied upon the facts and arguments set forth in the government's opposition to the motion (Docket, # 120), the government submits the attached proposed Order. If there were different or additional grounds, the government requests the matter be placed on the Court's calendar so that the Court's reasoning may be placed on the record. The undersigned regrets the inconvenience caused by not raising this issue during the January 11 hearing.
Dated: February 1, 2011 Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney
By: Philip A. Ferrari PHILIP A. FERRARI Assistant U.S. Attorney
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. SEAN GJERDE, Defendant.
ORDER ON DEFENDANT SEAN GJERDE'S MOTION TO SEVER
The above-referenced case came on before the Court on January 11, 2011, for a hearing on Defendant Sean Gjerde's Motion to Sever (Docket, # 119). The United States was represented by AUSA Philip Ferrari. Counsel for Gjerde was not present. During the course of the hearing, the Court ruled that the Motion to Sever was denied. Docket, # 123.
By this Order, the Court sets forth its reasons for denying the motion. In short, the motion is denied for the reasons set forth in the opposition to the motion filed by the United States (Docket, # 120). The Court finds defendant Gjerde and his co-defendants are properly joined under Rule 8 in the pending Indictment. The defendant has not made a sufficient showing to overcome the expressed preference in Federal Courts that defendants properly charged together be tried together. Zafiro
v. United States, 506 U.S. 534, 537 (1993). Specifically, the defendant has not established a violation of his right to a speedy trial under either the Speedy Trial Act or the Sixth Amendment. His concerns about the possibility of a future violation of this right are not sufficient to warrant severance, at this time.