IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
May 15, 2013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
ALAR MCCRAY, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge: Honorable Troy L. Nunley
JOHN R. MANNING (SBN 220874) ATTORNEY AT LAW 1111 H Street, # 204 Sacramento, CA. 95814 (916) 444-3994 Fax (916) 447-0931 Attorney for Defendant ALAR MCCRAY
STIPULATION REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS UNDER SPEEDY TRIAL ACT; FINDINGS AND ORDER Date: July 11, 2013 Time: 9:30 a.m.
The United States of America through its undersigned counsel, William S. Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, together with counsel for defendant Alar McCray, John R. Manning, Esq., hereby stipulate the following:
1. By previous order, this matter was set for change of plea on May 16, 2013.
2. By this stipulation, defendants now move to continue the change of plea until July 11, 2013 and to exclude time between May 16, 2013 and July 11, 2013 under the Local CodeT-4 (to allow defense counsel time to prepare). Mr. McCray had been housed at the Butte County Jail. While there, Mr. McCray was having issues receiving his medication, including the medication previously prescribed for psychiatric issues. Mr. McCray has now been "transferred" back to the Sacramento Main jail and is waiting to be interviewed by the medical/psychiatric staff. It is anticipated Mr. McCray will now have consistent access to his medication (once evaluated). Prior to being transferred to Butte County, Mr. McCray was "housed" at the main jail (in Sacramento) and before that, in CDC. In both instances, Mr. McCray was being treated with the use of psychiatric medication.
3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request the Court find the following:
a. Counsel for Alar McCray was appointed to represent the defendant on September 10, 2012 and the Federal Defender was relieved.
b. This case currently contains 41 pages of discovery as well as voluminous medical (mental health) records and related documents received from defendant's previous attorney (and California department of Corrections).
c. Counsel for the defendant needs additional time to review the discovery, conduct investigation, and interview potential witnesses.
d. Defendant is currently housed at the Butte County Jail. Counsel needs additional time to meet with defendant to review the discovery and discuss the case.
e. Counsel for defendants believe 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.
f. The Government does not object to the continuance.
g. Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by granting the requested continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial within the original date prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act.
h. For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv) within which trial must commence, the time period of May 16, 2013 to July 11, 2013, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 United States Code Section 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv), corresponding to Local Code T-4 because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant's request on the basis of the Court's finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within which a trial must commence.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.
© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.