The opinion of the court was delivered by: William H. Alsup United States District Judge
Gregory S. Walston, State Bar No. 196776 Orestes A. Cross, State Bar No. 250471 WALSTON CROSS, Attorneys 735 Montgomery St., Ste. 250 San Francisco, California 94111 Telephone: (415) 956-9200 Facsimile: (415) 956-9205 Attorneys for Defendant Aileen Krewson
STIPULATION AND [Proposed] ORDER SETTING DATES AND EXCLUDING TIME
The parties hereby agree and stipulate to the following dates:
Defense will provide notice of Expert Evidence of Mental Condition and Expert Witnesses Pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rules 12.2(b) and 16(a)(1)(G) by May 15, 2011.
The United States will provide notice of Expert Witness pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure, Rule 16(a)(1)(G) by June 20, 2011. 24 24 24
The parties will appear for a status conference on June 16, 2011, or a time convenient for June 14, 2011, at 2:00 p.m. the court.
As discussed at the parties' appearance on March 8, 2011, the parties further stipulate that in addition to the time from March 8, 2011 to May 16, 2011, the time from May 16, 2011 to that time when the Court schedules a pretrial hearing, should also be excluded in computing the time 2 within which the trial must commence. The trial in this matter, currently scheduled for June 6, 3 2011, will commence September 12, 2011, or at a time convenient for the court. at 7:30 a.m.
Good cause exists for the approval of the stipulation. In March,
Defendant retained an
expert who agreed to perform the service at the agreed to rate and
the client entered into a contract 6 with the expert, with payment
made. Expert's report was due April 1, 2011, but expert failed to 7
produce. The expert contacted our firm to inform us that the report
was forthcoming. The expert 8 failed to provide the report at that
time and opposing counsel was notified of the delay. 9
Throughout the month of April, expert provided excuse after excuse as to the delay. At the end of April, at the last moment, expert notified the client that she would not be serving as expert in this 11 11 11 case, and would not be providing the expert witness report as agreed upon, thus breaching the 12 12 12 contract with Defendant.
Defendant is charged with a felony (18 U.S.C. 1920), a key element of which is intent to commit fraud alleged. A medical expert will best be able to demonstrate that the Defendant had no 15 15 15 such intent, as she was, at the time of the allegations, under psychiatric treatment.
The pretrial conference on May 16 and trial date of June 6 are Vacated. IT IS SO ORDERED. 2
May 9 dates are now set in ...