Opinion
SCOTT N. SCHOOLS (SC 9990), United States Attorney, MARK L. KROTOSKI (CASBN 138549), Chief, Criminal Division, ANDREW P. CAPUTO (CASBN 203655), Assistant United States Attorney, San Francisco, California, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
JULIA MEZHINSKY JAYNE, Attorney for Defendant, ANDREW P. CAPUTO, Assistant United States Attorney.
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT CALCULATION (18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A))
SUSAN ILLSTON, District Judge.
With the agreement of the parties, and with the consent of defendant Yafit Eshed, the Court enters this order documenting defendant's exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), from May 11, 2007, to June 8, 2007. The parties agree, and the Court finds and holds, as follows:
1. Defendant agreed to an exclusion of time under the Speedy Trial Act. Failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, in this case.
Defendant requested this time exclusion in order to allow her counsel time to review discovery that will be provided by the government.
2. Given these circumstances, the Court found that the ends of justice served by excluding the period from May 11, 2007, to June 8, 2007, outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Id. at § 3161(h)(8)(A).
3. Accordingly, and with the consent of the defendant, at the hearing on May 11, 2007, the Court ordered that the period from May 11, 2007, to June 8, 2007, be excluded from Speedy Trial Act calculations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv).
IT IS SO STIPULATED.