MELINDA HAAG, (CABN 132612) United States Attorney, MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630) Chief, Criminal Division DAMALI A. TAYLOR, (CABN 262489) Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, E-Mail: firstname.lastname@example.org Attorneys for Plaintiff.
PAUL NATHAN, Counsel for the Defendant.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER DOCUMENTING WAIVER OF TIME UNDER RULE 5.1 AND EXCLUSION OF TIME UNDER THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
MARIA ELENA JAMES, Magistrate Judge.
The parties appeared before the Court in this matter on April 25, 2013 for detention hearing. Assistant United States Attorney Damali Taylor appeared on behalf of the United States. Paul Nathan, Esquire, appeared on behalf of the defendant, JOHNNY WONG, who was present and in custody. At the time of the hearing, conditions of release were imposed.
During the April 25, 2013 hearing, the parties requested that the anticipated date for preliminary hearing, May 6, 2013, be continued to Wednesday, May 29, 2013, due to scheduling conflicts, as well the need to examine the evidence and investigate the matter before formal charges are filed. The Court found good cause for extending the time limits under Rule 5.1(d). The matter was continued to May 29, 2013 for the purpose of preliminary hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, the Court is required to conduct a preliminary hearing on or before May 29, 2013, unless, inter alia, the defendant, who is in custody, waives the preliminary hearing or is indicted.
Defense counsel further requested that, in order to review the discovery and to conduct investigation necessary to effectively prepare defendant for either trial or resolution, that time be excluded under the Speedy Trial Act between April25, 2013 and May 29, 2013, the newly scheduled preliminary hearing date. Defense counsel represented that additional time is necessary to review the evidence and investigate the case, and that it is in the best interests of the defendant to do so before formal charges are filed.
The government also had no objection to excluding time and the parties stipulated to an exclusion oftime from April25, 2013 to May 29, 2013. The parties agree that the ends of justice served by granting such an exclusion oftime outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The Court made findings consistent with the parties' agreement.
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the preliminary hearing in this matter is re-set to May 29, 2013, at 9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero. The Court finds that good cause is shown for extending the time limits set forth in Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(c), and, further, concludes that the extension is proper under Rule 5.1 (d) and Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3060 and 3161.
The Court finds that the failure to grant the requested extension would deny counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds that the ends ofjustice served by granting the requested extension outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial and in the prompt disposition of criminal cases. The Court also concludes that an exclusion of time from April 25, 2013 through and including May 29, 2013, should be made under Title 18, United States Code, Sections 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court also finds that the ends ofjustice served by ...