The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Garland Burrell.
Law Offices of Preeti K. Bajwa Preeti K. Bajwa (SBN 232484) 901 H. Street, Suite 208 Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 444-7100 Attorney for Defendant AISHA STEVENS
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
IT IS HEREBY stipulated between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA through its undersigned counsel, Jared Dolan, Assistant United States Attorney together with counsel for defendant Aisha Stevens, Preeti K. Bajwa, Esq., counsel for defendant Anjenette Brown, Michael Bigelow, Esq., and counsel for defendant, John Smithson, Kirk McAllister hereby agree and stipulate that the status conference presently set for December 2, 2011 at 9:00 am be continued to January 6, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., thus vacating the presently set status conference.
The reason for this continuance is to allow defense counsel additional time to review discovery with the defendant, to examine possible defenses and to continue investigating the facts of the case.
Further, all of the parties, the United States of America and all of the defendants as stated above, hereby agree and stipulate that time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded under Title 18, United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local code T-2 (unusual and complex case) and Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare) from the date of the parties' stipulation, January 10, 2011, to and including Monday February 14, 2011.
TIME EXCLUDED UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
The parties (the government and all twelve (12) defendants) agree and stipulate that with the voluminous discovery, the number of defendants involved in the case (12), the complex legal issues involved in the case and the time needed by all defendants (12) to review all of the discovery produced by the government to date, it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in § 3161. In addition, the parties stipulate and agree that the continuance requested herein is necessary to provide defense counsel reasonable time to prepare their respective clients' defenses taking into account due diligence and that the interests of justice in granting this reasonable request for a continuance outweighs the best interests of the public and defendants for a speedy trial in this case, pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), corresponding to Local Code T-2 (unusual and complex case) and Local Code T-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. AISHA STEVENS, et al., Defendants.
[PROPOSED] ORDER TO CONTINUE STATUS CONFERNCE
The Court, having received, read, and considered the stipulation of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, adopts the stipulation of the parties in its entirety as its order. Based on the stipulation of the parties and the recitation of facts contained therein, the Court finds that this case is unusual and complex and that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the Court specifically finds that the failure to grant a continuance in this case would deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends of justice to be served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.
The Court orders that the time from the date of the parties' stipulation, December 2, 2011, to and including January 6, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv), and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (reasonable time for defense counsel to prepare). It is ...