IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 28, 2012
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
MUZDHA KHALIL, AMANULLAH KHALIL,
HIDAYATULLAH ALI KHALIL, WAHIDULLAH KHALIL,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell Jr.
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424 Federal Defender CARO MARKS, Bar #159267 Designated Counsel for Service 801 I Street, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95814 Telephone: (916) 498-5700 Attorney for Defendant MUZDHA KHALIL
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER; CONTINUING TRIAL CONFIRMATION ) HEARING
Date: July 13, 2012
Time: 9:00 a.m.
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between the parties hereto through their respective counsel, STEVEN LAPHAM, Assistant United States Attorney, CARO MARKS, attorney for MUZDHA KHALIL, CHRIS HAYDN-MYER, attorney for AMANULLAH KHALIL, THOMAS A. JOHNSON, attorney for HIDAYATULLAH ALI KHALIL and CANDACE FRY, attorney for WAHIDULLAH KHALIL, that the trial confirmation hearing date of July 6, 2012 be vacated, and the matter be set for trial confirmation hearing on July 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m..
The reason for this continuance is two-fold. First, one of the defense attorneys has planned travel that will take him out of the jurisdiction on July 6, 2012. Since at the TCH the parties might confirm for the scheduled July 31 jury trial, it is crucial that all defense attorneys be present.
Second, (former) AUSA Dominique Thomas, who had been prosecuting the case in the last year, is no longer associated with this United States Attorney's office. AUSA Steven R. Lapham has just taken over prosecution of the case, and all the parties seek a continuance to give them time to discuss the case with Mr. Lapham; to revisit various case inquiries, discovery matters, and settlement possibilities that the parties have not yet had an opportunity to explore with him; to entertain any new settlement offers the government or defense might tender, and to discuss trial matters generally, so that if the case is in fact headed for trial, at the TCH the parties will be able to provide the court with information about scheduling and other details, such as length of trial, exhibits, and other administrative matters.
Although the parties do not yet know whether the case will go to trial or settle, none intends to move to continue the July 31 jury trial date.
Based upon the foregoing, the parties agree that the time under the Speedy Trial Act should be excluded from the date of signing of this order through and including July 13, 2012 pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161 (h)(7)(A)and (B)(iv)[reasonable time to prepare] and Local Code T4 based upon continuity of counsel and defense preparation.
ORDER UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the July 6, 2012, trial confirmation hearing be continued to July 13, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing there from, the Court hereby 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 a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time up to and including the July 13, 2012 trial confirmation hearing shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) and Local Code T-4, to allow counsel reasonable time to prepare.
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.