Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02343/USCOURTS-cand-3_02-cv-02343-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALDRIDGE CURRIE,

Petitioner,

v

WARREN E RUPF, Sheriff of Contra

Costa County,

Respondent. /

No C 02-2343 VRW

ORDER

Petitioner seeks release pending his retrial on murder

charges in Contra Costa superior court. The circumstances leading

to the retrial have been fully explained in prior orders and, as

the court writes for the parties who are thoroughly familiar with

the facts, they will not be recounted here. Suffice it to say that

after a directive by the Ninth Circuit, this court on July 6, 2006,

ordered that petitioner be retried within ninety days or released. 

Neither event occurred within that time frame, hence the problem at

bar.

Case 3:02-cv-02343-VRW Document 71 Filed 12/15/06 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

The Contra Costa district attorney’s office has not

performed admirably in this matter - having lost, overlooked or

ignored this court’s order - but has now prepared itself to retry

petitioner and announced in both superior court and here that it is

“ready for trial.” Petitioner’s former counsel (counsel in the

first trial) is now defending another murder case and could not get

ready to defend petitioner until conclusion of that other case. 

For that reason, other counsel was appointed to defend petitioner. 

New counsel, understandably enough, requires time to get ready. 

Petitioner’s retrial is now scheduled for April 23, 2007.

Although ably represented in this proceeding, petitioner

has been unable to point to evidence that petitioner’s former

counsel somehow manufactured the conflicting engagement or that the

delay requested by petitioner’s present counsel is unreasonable and

these problems can somehow be laid at the district attorney’s

doorstep. The court’s November 22 order stated that “[i]f the

criminal proceedings against petitioner shall have commenced by

December 14 or if not then commenced but through no fault of the

prosecutor, petitioner will have little cause for complaint.” Doc

#67. Because the district attorney’s office has demonstrated a

willingness to proceed and petitioner’s retrial has been postponed

to accommodate defense counsel’s preparation, petitioner’s request

for release is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

 

VAUGHN R WALKER

United States District Chief Judge

Case 3:02-cv-02343-VRW Document 71 Filed 12/15/06 Page 2 of 2