United States District Court, N.D. California, San Francisco Division
JOHN D. FORSYTH, Law Office of John D. Forsyth, San Francisco, California, Attorney for Defendant GREGORY KITTLING.
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, John D. Forsyth, Esq.on behalf of the defendant, GREGORY KITTLING, and Assistant United States Attorney Damali A. Taylor on behalf of the United States hereby request that the current February 14, 2014 date for preliminary hearing be continued until March 7, 2014 so that defense counsel and the government may review the voluminous discovery in this case and review a recently provided neuro-psychological examination and evaluation of the defendant by Amanda Gregory, Ph.D. The parties further request that, given the need to gather and examine discovery, time continue to be excluded under both Rule 5.1 and the Speedy Trial Act until March 7, 2014. Additional time is necessary review the evidence and investigate this case and it is in the best interest of the defendant to do so before formal charges are filed. In addition, defense counsel is expected to be in trial in Mendocino County on another matter during this time. The government agrees. To date, no time has elapsed under either Rule 5.1 or the Speedy Trial Act. Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1, the Court would now be required to conduct a preliminary hearing on or before March 7, unless, inter alia, the defendant, who is in custody, waives the preliminary hearing or is indicted.
The parties agree that the ends of justice are served by granting such an exclusion of time outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. section 3161(h)(7)(A).
For the foregoing reasons, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that the date for preliminary hearing in this matter is re-set to March 7, 2014 at 9:30a.m. unless, inter alia, the defendant, who is in custody, waives the preliminary hearing or is indicted. 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 of justice 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 through and including March 7, 2014, 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 of justice served ...