Opinion
No. CR-S-09-00170-GEB
09-18-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT L. CARR, and THERESA ANN CARR, Defendant.
DANIEL BRODERICK Federal Defender DOUGLAS BEEVERS Assistant Federal Defender Attorney for Defendant THERESA ANN CARR By: Michael Long Attorney for defendant Robert Carr BENJAMIN B. WAGNER United States Attorney By: SAMUEL WONG Assistant U.S. Attorney
DANIEL J. BRODERICK, Bar #89424
Federal Defender
DOUGLAS BEEVERS, AZ Bar #016370
Assistant Federal Defender
Designated Counsel for Service
Attorney for Defendant
THERESA ANN CARR
STIPULATION AND ORDER TO CONTINUE TRIAL AND TRIAL CONFIRMATION HEARING
Judge: Hon. Garland E. Burrell
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED between the parties, Samuel Wong, Assistant United States Attorney, for plaintiff United States of America, on the one hand, and Douglas Beevers, Assistant Federal Defender, attorney for defendant Theresa Ann Carr, and Michael Long, Esq., attorney for defendant Robert Carr, on the other hand, that the trial confirmation hearing of September 16, 2011 at 9:00 a.m., be vacated, and the matter be set for trial confirmation on January 13, 2012 at 9:00 a.m., and that the jury trial set for October 25, 2011 at 9:00 a.m. be vacated and a new jury trial date be set on March 13, 2012.
The reason for the continuance is allow additional time for the defense to consider, research, and investigate the Superseding Indictment, which was filed within the last month. The Superseding Indictment contains sixty-nine criminal charges and alleges criminal activity spanning approximately ten years. The parties also desire additional time to continue plea negotiations in an effort to resolve this very complex and unusual case within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act. In addition, defense counsel needs more time to review with their respective clients the voluminous discovery (over 30 boxes of documents) and additional discovery pertinent to the additional charges included in the recently filed superseding indictment. The parties agree and stipulate that with the voluminous discovery, the number of criminal charges (sixty-nine counts), the complex legal issues involved in the case, and preparation for the possible dozens of witnesses who might testify in this case, it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161. In addition, the parties stipulate and agree that the continuance requested herein is necessary to provide the undersigned defense counsel reasonable time to prepare their respective clients' defenses, taking into account due diligence. The parties stipulate and agree that the interests of justice in granting this reasonable request for a continuance outweighs the best interests of the public and defendants for a speedy trial in this case.
Accordingly, it is stipulated that the period from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 14, 2011, and up to and including March 13, 2012, shall be excluded in computing the time within which trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B) (ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (ongoing preparation of defense counsel).
Respectfully submitted,
DANIEL BRODERICK
Federal Defender
DOUGLAS BEEVERS
Assistant Federal Defender
Attorney for Defendant
THERESA ANN CARR
C. Michael Long
By: Michael Long
Attorney for defendant
Robert Carr
BENJAMIN B. WAGNER
United States Attorney
By: SAMUEL WONG
Assistant U.S. Attorney
ORDER
UPON GOOD CAUSE SHOWN and the stipulation of all parties, it is ordered that the trial confirmation hearing presently set for September 16, 2011, be continued to January 13, 2012, at 9:00 a.m., and that the jury trial presently set for October 25, 2011 be vacated and a new jury trial date be set on March 13, 2012. Based on the representation of defense counsel and good cause appearing therefrom, the Court hereby finds that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and trial itself within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the case is unusual or complex within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, and the requested continuance is necessary to provide defense counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. The Court finds the ends of justice to be served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. It is ordered that time from the date of the parties' stipulation, September 14, 2011, up to and including, the March 13, 2012, trial date shall be excluded from computation of time within which the trial of this matter must be commenced under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(ii) and (iv) and Local Codes T2 (unusual and complex case) and T4 (allow defense counsel reasonable time to prepare).
GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.
United States District Judge