UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
November 23, 2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA PLAINTIFF
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Joseph C. Spero United States Magistrate Judge
CRB (JS) STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED) ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM NOVEMBER 21, 2011 TO JANUARY 11, 2012
On November 21, 2011, the parties in this matter appeared before the Honorable
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for an initial appearance and arraignment. During this 23 appearance, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act 24 calculations from November 21, 2011 until January 11, 2012 for effective preparation of counsel. 25
The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time necessary for 26 effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 27 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). 4
Brian Getz David J. Ward 7 Counsel for Defendant James Doherty Jeane Hamilton Albert B. Sambat Christina M. Wheeler Manish Kumar Trial Attorneys United States Department of Justice Antitrust Division
As the Court found on November 21, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court
finds that an exclusion of time from November 21, 2011 to January 11, 2012, is warranted and 15 that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and 16 the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the 17 requested continuance would deny the defendant and deny defense counsel the reasonable time 18 19 necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
Judge Joseph Spero
© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.