The opinion of the court was delivered by: Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
ORDER VACATING TRIAL DATE, EXCLUDING TIME UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL
ACT, AND SETTING FURTHER STATUS CONFERENCE DATE
On September 6, 2012, the parties appeared before the Court for a trial confirmation hearing. Assistant United States Attorney Samuel Wong appeared on behalf of plaintiff United States of America. Assistant Federal Defender Douglas Beevers appeared with defendant Crescencio Delgado-Ezquivel. Dwight Samuel, Esq., appeared with his client, defendant Victor Gonzalez, and specially for attorney Dina Santos, Esq., on behalf of defendant Waldo Perez-Mendoza. Michael Hansen, Esq., appeared with his client, defendant Norma Gonzalez. Danny Brace, Esq., appeared with his client, defendant Armando Vasquez-Barragan.
The parties jointly requested that the Court vacate the presently set October 2, 2012, to provide the parties additional time to: (1) obtain an updated and revised pre-plea presentence report for defendant Delgado-Ezquivel that encompasses both of the criminal cases presently charged against him so that he can intelligently decide his course of action in this case, to wit: pretrial settlement or trial; and (2) allow defendant Victor Gonzalez's expert to retest and reweigh Drug Exhibit No. 5, which scientific test results are critical to Victor Gonzalez's defense. The parties requested and agreed that: (1) the Court hold a status conference on October 2, 2012, at 9:15 a.m.; and (2) the time period from the September 6, 2012, hearing to, and including, the new status conference hearing October 2, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Code T4.
Based on the representations and stipulations of the parties, and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court vacates the presently set October 2, 2012, trial date and sets a new status conference hearing on October 2, 2012, at 9:15 a.m. The Court orders that time from September 6, 2012, to, and including, October 2, 2012, shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this case must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), and Local Code T4 pertaining to defense preparation.
The Court 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.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...