Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133-6/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Frenchie McGriff
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 

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 

PHILLIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

BRIAN W. ENOS 

Assistant United States Attorney 

2500 Tulare Street, Suite 4401 

Fresno, Ca 93721 

Telephone: (559) 497-4000 

Facsimile: (559) 497-4099 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

United States of America 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

ROBERT FRENCHIE McGRIFF, 

Defendant. 

Case No: 1:19-cr-00133 NONE/SKO 

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE MAY 4, 2022 

STATUS CONFERENCE TO JULY 20, 2022; 

ORDER

Ctrm: 7 

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 

 

This case is set for a status conference on Wednesday, May 4, 2021. Dkt. 58. On May 13, 2020, 

this Court issued General Order 618, which suspended all jury trials in the Eastern District of California 

“until further notice.” Under General Order 618, a judge “may exercise his or her authority to continue 

matters, excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act with reference to the court’s prior General Order 611 

issued on March 17, 2020 . . . with additional findings to support the exclusion in the Judge’s 

discretion.” General Order 618, ¶ 6 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). In addition, any judge “may order caseby-case exceptions” to General Order 618’s provisions “at the discretion of that Judge or upon the 

request of counsel, after consultation with counsel and the Clerk of the Court to the extent such an order 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 1 of 6
2 

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 

will impact court staff and operations.” General Order 618, ¶ 7 (E.D. Cal. May 13, 2020). This and 

previous General Orders were entered to address public health concerns related to COVID-19. 

Although the General Orders address the district-wide health concern, the Supreme Court has 

emphasized that the Speedy Trial Act’s end-of-justice provision “counteract[s] substantive 

openendedness with procedural strictness,” “demand[ing] on-the-record findings” in a particular case. 

Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 509 (2006). “[W]ithout on-the-record findings, there can be no 

exclusion under” § 3161(h)(7)(A). Id. at 507. Moreover, any such failure cannot be harmless. Id. at 

509; see also United States v. Ramirez-Cortez, 213 F.3d 1149, 1153 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that a 

judge ordering an ends-of-justice continuance must set forth explicit findings on the record “either orally 

or in writing”). 

Based on the plain text of the Speedy Trial Act—which Zedner emphasizes as both mandatory 

and inexcusable—General Orders 611, 612, 617, and 618 require specific supplementation. Ends-ofjustice continuances are excludable only if “the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his 

findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and 

the defendant in a speedy trial.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). Moreover, no such period is excludable 

unless “the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reason or finding that 

the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public 

and the defendant in a speedy trial.” Id.

The General Orders exclude delay in the “ends of justice.” 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code 

T4). Although the Speedy Trial Act does not directly address continuances stemming from pandemics, 

natural disasters, or other emergencies, this Court has discretion to order a continuance in such 

circumstances. For example, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a two-week ends-of-justice continuance 

following Mt. St. Helens’ eruption. Furlow v. United States, 644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 1981). The court 

recognized that the eruption created “appreciable difficulty” for the trial to proceed. Id. at 767-69; see 

also United States v. Correa, 182 F. Supp. 326, 329 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (citing Furlow to exclude time 

following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the resultant public emergency). 

The coronavirus is posing a similar, albeit much more enduring, “appreciable difficulty” to the 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 2 of 6
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 

prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules. Recently, the Ninth Circuit enumerated a “nonexhaustive” list of seven factors it found to be “relevant” in considering ends-of-justice Speedy Trial Act 

continuances “in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.” United States v. Olsen, --- F.3d ---, 2021 WL 

1589359 at *7 (9th Cir. Apr. 23, 2021). That non-exhaustive list includes: (1) whether a defendant is 

detained pending trial; (2) how long a defendant has been detained; (3) whether a defendant has invoked 

speedy trial rights since the case’s inception; (4) whether a defendant, if detained, belongs to a 

population that is particularly susceptible to complications if infected with the virus; (5) the seriousness 

of the charges defendant faces, and in particular whether the defendant is accused of violent crimes; (6) 

whether there is a reasons to suspect recidivism if the charges against the defendant are dismissed; and 

(7) whether the district court has the ability to safely conduct a trial. Id. 

In light of the foregoing, this Court should consider the following case-specific facts in finding 

excludable delay appropriate in this particular case under the ends-of-justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) 

(Local Code T4). If continued, this Court should designate a new date for this matter’s next status 

conference. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 2010) (noting any pretrial 

continuance must be “specifically limited in time”). 

STIPULATION 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective attorneys of record, Assistant 

United States Attorney Brian W. Enos, counsel for the government, and Eric V. Kersten, counsel for 

defendant Robert Frenchie McGriff (“defendant”), that this action’s Wednesday, May 4, 2022 status 

conference be continued to Wednesday, July 20, 2022, at 1:00 p.m. The parties likewise ask the 

court to endorse this stipulation by way of formal order. 

The parties base this stipulation on good cause. Specifically, 

1. As explained within a January 12, 2021 Joint Status Report (Dkt. 34), prior defense counsel 

Gary Huss advised the court of his intent to move to withdraw from the case. The court both 

heard and granted this motion on January 25, 2021. Mr. McGriff did not object to prior 

counsel’s request to withdraw. Dkt. 37. 

2. On February 16, 2021, Mr. McGriff’s new counsel filed his Notice of Appearance regarding 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 3 of 6
4 

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 

this case, and appeared at its status conference later that day. Dkts. 38 and 39. At this status 

conference, counsel for the government advised the court that he had provided new counsel 

with a full set of discovery previously provided to Mr. McGriff’s prior counsel, which itself 

exceeds many thousands of pages of information. Dkt. 39. The parties also agreed to a 

stipulation safeguarding the confidentiality of third parties identified in this discovery, which 

the court endorsed by way of a formal order. Dkt. 41. 

3. As noted in the parties’ prior stipulation that the court endorsed by way of formal order on 

January 21, 2022 (Dkt. 57), defense counsel was on leave from December 2021 until March 

2022. The parties submit this stipulation in part to allow time for defense counsel’s return to 

the office in the interest of continuity of counsel. 

4. Defense counsel nears the completion of his: (1) review of the voluminous discovery in this 

case and (2) discussing the contents of the same with defendant. Instagram evidence alone 

consists of thousands of pages of materials, and this discovery further includes investigative 

reports, probation and criminal history records, search warrant documents, voluminous 

records relating to defendant’s social media accounts, and information about defendant. 

5. Defense counsel is also considering retaining an expert to review cell phone and other 

electronic data. Counsel for the government will promptly assist as necessary to arrange for 

the defense’s review of any electronic evidence in this case, as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3509(m) of the Adam Walsh Act. 

6. The government provided prior counsel a plea offer in this case. It will remain open through 

the continued May 4, 2022 status conference date. Counsel for the parties intend to continue 

substantively discussing its terms through the defense’s ability to complete its analysis of 

discovery provided and consider the propriety of pretrial motions. Defendant is currently in 

custody in Kern County, California. Defense counsel has arranged with the appropriate jail 

personnel to timely speak with him in confidence, and these discussions will need to continue 

after the aforementioned evidence review is completed. The parties nevertheless will 

endeavor to meaningfully continue with their efforts at resolving this matter prior to the 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 4 of 6
5 

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 

continued status conference. If such a resolution is achieved, the parties will promptly advise 

the court and request the scheduling of a change of plea hearing. If a resolution is not 

achieved by the requested continuance date, either the defense will be prepared to request a 

briefing schedule regarding pretrial motions, or the parties will request the setting of a trial 

date. 

7. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from May 4, 2022, through July 20, 

2022, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A) and 3161(h)(7)(B)(i) and 

(iv) because it results from a continuance granted by the Court at the parties’ request on the 

basis of the Court’s finding that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the 

best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Counsel for defendant believes 

that failure to grant the above-requested continuance would deny him the reasonable time 

necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 

8. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions of the 

Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time periods are excludable from the period within 

which a trial must commence. 

IT IS SO STIPULATED. 

Dated: April 26, 2022 

By: 

PHILIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ Brian W. Enos 

 Brian W. Enos 

Assistant United States Attorney 

(As authorized 4/26/22) 

Dated: April 26, 2022 By: /s/ Eric V. Kersten 

 Eric V. Kersten, Esq. 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Robert Frenchie McGriff 

 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 5 of 6
6 

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 

O R D E R 

IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing currently set for Wednesday, May 4, 2022 at 1:00 pm is 

continued until Wednesday, July 20, 2022, at 1:00 pm. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from May 4, 2022, through July 20, 

2022, is deemed excludable for the reasons set forth in the parties' stipulation. The parties shall be 

prepared to select a mutually agreeable trial date at the next status conference. 

Dated: 

Honorable Sheila K. Oberto 

United States Magistrate Judge 

4/28/2022

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 60 Filed 04/28/22 Page 6 of 6