The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William B. Shubb
Brian J. Petersen P ETERSEN L AW O FFICE 360 Ritch Street, Suite 201 San Francisco, CA 94107 Tel: (415) 777-3174 Fax: (415) 777-3175 Email: firstname.lastname@example.org Jeffrey D. Schwartz A ATTORNEY AT L AW Jacoby's Storehouse 791 8th Street, Suite H Arcata, CA 95521 Tel: (707) 822-2707 Fax: (707) 633-1900 Email: email@example.com Attorneys for Defendant JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER
CONTINUING STATUS DATE;
Date: March 12, 2012
Time: 10:00 a.m.
Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the March 12, 2012 Status date in this matter be continued to April 16, 2012. Counsel agree and stipulate that after ongoing discussions the prosecution in the last few days has extended a plea offer to defendant. Defense counsel needs time to discuss the offer with defendant and to subpoena some records that might make a difference to the proposed plea bargain.
Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until April 16, 2012. Exclusion of time is proper pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) and local code T4 because the requested continuance is intended to allow the defense additional time to prepare its case, thereby ensuring effective assistance of counsel.
DECLARATION OF BRIAN J. PETERSEN
I am an attorney at law, licensed to practice before all courts of the State of California, and I have been retained by defendant herein JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA ("defendant"). I make this declaration from facts within my own personal knowledge, except where stated on information and belief, in which case I believe the facts stated to be true. If called to testify in this matter, I could and would do so competently.
1. I filed a Substitution of Attorneys in this matter on September 4, 2011, which was approved by the Court shortly thereafter. Around the same time, by stipulation counsel for the government and myself continued the status date until October 17, 2011.
2. Since then, I obtained and reviewed all of the discovery and met with my client and an interpreter to discuss it. On September 28, 2011, I requested some additional evidence from AUSA Daniel McConkie.
3. Mr. McConkie and I stipulated to continue the next status conference date from October 17, 2011 to December 12, 2011, then to February 6, 2012, and then to March 12, 2012, and the Court approved the requests. During that period, Mr. McConkie obtained some of the discovery I requested, and has now concluded that he has obtained everything that he can get. Mr. McConkie and I met in person on November 29, 2011 to discuss the case. I proposed a way to Mr. McConkie to resolve the case. He is considered my proposal and suggested that he might make a counter-proposal after discussing the matter in his office. After some further back-and-forth discussion, he extended an offer to my client on Monday, March 5, 2012. Mr. McConkie says that his offer might change if I were to present him with evidence going to the credibility of one of the law enforcement officers involved in defendant's case.
4. I plan to meet with defendant on March 8, 2012 to discuss the government's offer, and I will explain to him that I am asking to continue the status conference again. He has always said that he wants me to be prepared and understands that it takes time.
5. I am also separately asking the Court to approve the issuance of a subpoena, directed to a video production company in Los Angeles, that I hope will lead to the sort of evidence that might soften the government's offer. Mr. McConkie understands that is my ...