Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00759/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cr-00759-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Laurie Griffen
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

[CR 05 0759] [WHA] 1

KEVIN V. RYAN (CSBN 118321)

United States Attorney

EUMI L. CHOI (WVBN 0722)

Chief, Criminal Division

SUSAN E. BADGER (CSBN 124365)

Assistant United States Attorney

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, CA 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7199

FAX: (415) 436-7234

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

LAURIE GRIFFEN,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CR 05 0759 WHA

STIPULATION AND

[PROPOSED] ORDER

FINDING EXCLUDABLE TIME;

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)

The parties stipulate as follows:

1. The parties appeared on January 3, 2006 for defendant Laurie Griffen’s initial

appearance before this Court on the charges in the above-captioned indictment. Assistant

Federal Public Defender Daniel Blank appeared on behalf of the defendant, who was

present. Assistant United States Attorney Susan Badger appeared on behalf of the United

States. Defendant’s initial appearance and arraignment took place on December 21,

2005.

Case 3:05-cr-00759-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/18/06 Page 1 of 3
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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

[CR 05 0759] [WHA] 2

2. Government counsel advised/ the Court that approximately 600 pages of

discovery have been provided to defense counsel, and agreed that any remaining

discovery would be provided by January 6, 2006. Counsel anticipated that the additional

documents could total anywhere from 200 to 400 pages. Defense counsel advised the

Court that he was in the process of reviewing the discovery with his client, and he would

need additional time to do so for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence.

3. The parties jointly advised the Court that they were also in the process of

discussing potential resolution of this matter. Government counsel advised the Court that

she would be unavailable from January 9 through January 16.

4. In light of the need for additional time to provide discovery, review discovery,

effectively prepare, and discuss potential resolution of this matter, the parties jointly

requested that the matter be continued to January 31, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. before this Court.

The parties anticipated that at that time, the defendant would enter a change of plea or the

parties would request that the Court schedule further proceedings, including motions

hearing and trial.

5. The Court granted the parties’ request and the matter was continued to January

31, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. for change of plea or setting of further proceedings.

6. The parties jointly move for a finding that the time between January 3, 2006

and January 31, 2006 be excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18

U.S.C. § 3161. The parties move for the exclusion based on the need for reasonable time

for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence, and due to the unavailability

of counsel.

Respectfully submitted,

DATED: 1/18/06 KEVIN V. RYAN

United States Attorney

 /S/ Susan E. Badger

SUSAN E. BADGER

Assistant United States Attorney

//

Case 3:05-cr-00759-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/18/06 Page 2 of 3
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

STIP. & [PROP.] ORDER

[CR 05 0759] [WHA] 3

DATED: 1/17/06 BARRY PORTMAN

Federal Public Defender

 /S/ Daniel Blank

DANIEL BLANK

Assistant Federal Public Defender

The Court finds that good cause appearing, the time between January 3, 2006 and

January 31, 2006 is excluded from the time requirements of the Speedy Trial Act, 18

U.S.C. § 3161. The Court finds that in light of the fact that a significant amount of

documentary discovery has been recently provided, and that more discovery will be

forthcoming, and the fact that the parties need additional time within which to discuss

potential resolution of this matter, the time is appropriately excluded in order to provide

reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account due diligence.

Further, the time is excluded in order to provide continuity of government counsel. The

Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting of such continuance and exclusion

outweighs the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. §

3161(h)(8)(A) & (B).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WILLIAM H. ALSUP

United States District Judge U

NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRANTED

Judge William Alsup

January 18, 2006

Case 3:05-cr-00759-WHA Document 10 Filed 01/18/06 Page 3 of 3