Opinion
Criminal No. CR 11-00797 CRB (JS)
11-23-2011
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES DOHERTY, Defendant.
JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834) ALBERT B. SAMBAT (CSBN 236472) DAVID J. WARD (CSBN 239504) CHRISTINA M. WHEELER (CSBN 203395) MANISH KUMAR (CSBN 269493) U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division Attorneys for the United States
JEANE HAMILTON (CSBN 157834)
ALBERT B. SAMBAT (CSBN 236472)
DAVID J. WARD (CSBN 239504)
CHRISTINA M. WHEELER (CSBN 203395)
MANISH KUMAR (CSBN 269493)
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
Attorneys for the United States
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED)
ORDER EXCLUDING TIME UNDER
THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT FROM
NOVEMBER 21, 2011 TO JANUARY
11, 2012
On November 21, 2011, the parties in this matter appeared before the Honorable Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for an initial appearance and arraignment. During this appearance, the parties stipulated that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculations from November 21, 2011 until January 11, 2012 for effective preparation of counsel. The parties represented that granting the continuance was for the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and (B)(iv).
The parties also agree that the ends of justice served by granting such a continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).
SO STIPULATED:
Brian Getz
Counsel for Defendant James Doherty
David J. Ward
Jeane Hamilton
Albert B. Sambat
Christina M. Wheeler
Manish Kumar
Trial Attorneys
United States Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
As the Court found on November 21, 2011, and for the reasons stated above, the Court finds that an exclusion of time from November 21, 2011 to January 11, 2012, is warranted and that the ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161 (h)(7)(A). The failure to grant the requested continuance would deny the defendant and deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, and would result in a miscarriage of justice. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).
SO ORDERED.
JOSEPH C. SPERO
United States Magistrate Judge