From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Gray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
No. CR 11-71227 TJB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)

Opinion

No. CR 11-71227 TJB

11-15-2011

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ISAAC GRAY, and DEJA LAMBERT, Defendants.

MELINDA HAAG United States Attorney CYNTHIA M. FREY Assistant United States Attorney MARK GOLDROSEN Attorney for ISAAC GRAY GEOFFREY HANSEN Attorney for DEJA LAMBERT


MELINDA HAAG (CABN 132612)

United States Attorney

MIRANDA KANE (CABN 150630)

Chief, Criminal Division

CYNTHIA M. FREY (CABN 150571)

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorneys for Plaintiff

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME FROM

NOVEMBER 4, 2011 TO NOVEMBER 29,

2011 UNDER RULE 5.1 AND FROM

CALCULATIONS UNDER THE SPEEDY

TRIAL ACT

The defendants, Isaac Gray, represented by Mark Goldrosen, and Deja Lambert, represented by Geoffrey Hansen, Chief Assistant Federal Public Defender, and the government, represented by Cynthia Frey, Assistant United States Attorney, appeared before the Honorable Joseph C. Spero on November 4, 2011 for detention hearings. The parties asked that the matter be continued to November 29, 2011 for a preliminary hearing or indictment. The defendants agreed to exclude time under the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1 to hold a preliminary hearing, and under 18 U.S.C. § 3161, the Speedy Trial Act. The Court ordered the matter be continued to November 29, 2011 for a preliminary hearing or indictment.

The defendants agreed that good cause exists for excluding time under Rule 5.1 for a preliminary hearing between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011. The defendants also agreed that an exclusion of time is appropriate under the Speedy Trial Act between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011 for purposes of continuity of counsel and effective preparation of counsel, in order to provide defense counsel with adequate time to review the discovery, conduct an investigation, and consult with the defendants. In addition, the defendants agree to exclude for this period of time any time limits applicable under 18 U.S.C. § 3161. The parties represent that granting the continuance, in order to provide defense counsel with adequate time to review the discovery, conduct additional investigation, and consult with the defendants, is necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(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 defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

SO STIPULATED:

MELINDA HAAG

United States Attorney

CYNTHIA M. FREY

Assistant United States Attorney

MARK GOLDROSEN

Attorney for ISAAC GRAY

GEOFFREY HANSEN

Attorney for DEJA LAMBERT

Based upon the representation of counsel and for good cause shown, the Court also finds that good cause exists, taking into account the public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases, for excluding time under Rule 5.1 for a preliminary hearing between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011. The Court finds that failing to exclude the time between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011 would unreasonably deny the defendants and counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). The Court further finds that the ends ofjustice served by excluding the time between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011 from computation under the Speedy Trial Act outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendants in a speedy trial.

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that time is appropriately excluded under Rule 5.1 between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011 within which to hold a preliminary hearing and the time between November 4, 2011 and November 29, 2011 shall be excluded from computation under the Speedy Trial Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

HONORABLE JOSEPH C. SPERO

United States Magistrate Judge


Summaries of

United States v. Gray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
Nov 15, 2011
No. CR 11-71227 TJB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)
Case details for

United States v. Gray

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. ISAAC GRAY, and DEJA LAMBERT…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

Date published: Nov 15, 2011

Citations

No. CR 11-71227 TJB (N.D. Cal. Nov. 15, 2011)