Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The United States of America v. Jose Pineda-Mendoza

July 20, 2012


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. William B. Shubb

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING STATUS DATE; DECLARATION OF COUNSEL Date: July 23, 2012 Time: 10:00 a.m. Courtroom 5, Hon. William B. Shubb

Counsel for the government and defendant respectfully submit this Stipulation and [Proposed] Order requesting that the July 23, 2012 Status and subpoena compliance date in this matter be continued to August 27, 2012. Counsel agree and stipulate that the defendant needs to litigate the scope of production mandated by the Rule 17 subpoena the Court authorized on March 14, 2012, that defense counsel and the attorney for the records custodian are working out a briefing schedule for a hearing before a Magistrate Judge, and that the hearing will be scheduled before the August 27, 2012 proposed Status date, even if the hearing has not taken place by then.

Counsel further stipulate to the exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act from the date of this Order until August 27, 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.

Respectfully submitted,

Date: July 19, 2012 Daniel S. McConkie Daniel S. McConkie Assistant United States Attorney Date: July 19, 2012 Brian J. Petersen Brian J. Petersen Attorney for Defendant JOSE PINEDA-MENDOZA


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. On March 14, 2012, the Court authorized issuance of a subpoena (docket #23) directed to the producers of a TV show called "Wild Justice" which stars one of the officers involved in defendant's case.

2. On March 28, 2012, I sent the subpoena to Los Angeles to be served, and it was served on April 2, 2012 (docket #24). The status and setting date for this case has been continued several times while the custodian of records has worked to collect the subpoenaed records, and while I have tried to narrow the scope of my requests to assist the custodian.

3. On May 31, 2012, the custodian of records informed me by email that on May 30, 2012 he had sent the Court some video footage responsive to the subpoena, but that there was additional responsive footage that would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive to identify and locate.

4. Pursuant to stipulation (docket #30) the produced records were released to me for copying, I made copies for myself and the government, and the original records were returned to the Court.

5. I have reviewed the produced records. What was produced was about 90 minutes of video, apparently from a law enforcement raid that took place on June 27, 2011 (defendant was arrested on July 14, 2011). The video shows the suspect in that case being detained and bitten by Boyd's dog "Phebe," as happened in defendant's case, and then that suspect being questioned at the scene before being evacuated by helicopter for medical treatment, again as happened in defendant's case. A viewer of this video could be watching the events from defendant's case, except with someone else playing the part of defendant.

6. On June 20, 2012, I emailed the custodian at Original, commended them for producing footage directly relevant to the subpoena, but asked them for more information about the other "countless hours of footage of Boyd, his dog, and various busts," as it had been characterized in the custodian's May 31, 2012 email. Specifically, I requested some sort of summary of the number of days that Boyd had been filmed, as well as the sort of operations that were ongoing when being filmed, in order to try to narrow the scope of the information called for in the subpoena.

7. On June 22, 2012, I received a phone call from Samantha Grant, outside counsel for Original, regarding the subpoena. I emailed her the next day, essentially repeating my request for a summary ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.