The opinion of the court was delivered by: Garland E. Burrell, Jr. United States District Judge
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney KEVIN C. KHASIGIAN Assistant U.S. Attorney 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 Telephone: (916)554-2700 Attorneys for the United States
STIPULATION FOR STAY OF FURTHER PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER [PROPOSED]
The United States of America and claimant Jonathan Todd Farrell (hereafter "claimant") stipulate that a stay is necessary in the above-entitled action, and request that the Court enter an order staying all further proceedings pending the outcome of a related criminal case now pending in this Court (United States v. Jonathan Todd Farrell, 2:09-CR-00426-GEB). The next status conference in the criminal case is scheduled for December 2, 2011; the parties seek a further stay in this case until February 2, 2012. This stipulation is based on the following:
1. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), (g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i) the parties suggest that a stay of further proceedings in this case is necessary. The United States contends that the defendant currency is the proceeds of drug trafficking, and that the defendant vehicles were used to facilitate the cultivation of marijuana, and are therefore forfeitable to the United States. The United States intends to depose the claimant about the claim he filed in this case and the facts surrounding his acquisition of the currency, and his use of the vehicles. The United States will also question claimant about the events that led to the filing of an information against him for manufacturing marijuana and possession of a firearm by a felon. If discovery proceeds, claimant would be placed in the difficult position of either invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and losing the ability to protect his interest in the defendant property, or waiving his Fifth Amendment rights and submitting to a deposition and potentially incriminating himself in the pending criminal matter. If claimant invokes his Fifth Amendment rights, the United States will be deprived of the ability to explore the factual basis for the claim he filed in this action and the defenses raised in his Answer.
2. In addition, if this case is not stayed claimant will attempt to depose law enforcement officers who were involved in the execution of the search warrants at the claimant's residence and other locations where marijuana plants and growing equipment was found. Allowing depositions of these officers would adversely affect the ability of the federal authorities to conduct its related criminal prosecution.
3. Accordingly, the parties contend that proceeding with this action at this time has potential adverse affects on the prosecution of the related criminal case and/or upon claimant's ability to prove his claim to the property and to contest the United State's allegations that the property is forfeitable. However, the parties are informed and believe that the criminal matter involving Farrell may be resolved in the near future. The status conference in Farrell's criminal case has been continued again to December 2, 2011. For these reasons, the parties jointly request that this matter be stayed until February 2, 2012. At that time the parties will advise the court of the status of the criminal prosecution and will, if necessary, seek a further stay.
For the reasons set forth above, this matter is stayed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 981(g)(1), 981(g)(2), and 21 U.S.C. § 881(i). On or before February 2, 2012, the parties will advise the court whether a further stay is necessary.
Good cause having been shown, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference now scheduled for December 12, 2011, is continued to February 27, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. The parties shall submit a joint scheduling report fourteen days prior to the hearing.
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw ...