Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-mj-00018/USCOURTS-caed-2_20-mj-00018-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Arlene-Anela Keko Olani
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

1 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 

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 

McGREGOR W. SCOTT 

United States Attorney 

JASON HITT 

Assistant United States Attorney 

501 I Street, Suite 10-100 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Telephone: (916) 554-2700 

Facsimile: (916) 554-2900 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 

United States of America 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

ARLENE-ANELA KEKO OLANI, 

 Defendant. 

CASE NO. 2:20-MJ-00018-KJN 

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

CONTINUING PRELIMINARY HEARING AND 

EXCLUDING TIME 

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Assistant United States Attorney Jason Hitt, 

counsel for the plaintiff United States of America, and defendant Arlene-Anela Keko Olani, by and 

through her counsel Candice Fields, Esq., that good cause exists to extend the preliminary hearing 

currently set for April 1, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. to May 28, 2020, pursuant to Rule 5.1(d) of the Federal Rule 

of Criminal Procedure, and that time should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act. This stipulation is 

made pursuant to the findings made by this Court in this District’s General Order Numbers 611 and 612. 

On March 17, 2020, this Court issued General Order 611, which suspends all jury trials in the 

Eastern District of California scheduled to commence before May 1, 2020. This General Order was 

entered to address public health concerns related to COVID-19. On March 18, 2020, this Court issued 

General Order 612, which closed all courthouses of the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of California shall be closed to the public and limited access to a narrow class of authorized 

Case 2:20-mj-00018-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 1 of 5
2 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 

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 

persons. 

Although General Order 611 addresses 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. And 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 and 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—the General Order requires specific supplementation. Ends-of-justice 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.

General Order 611 excludes 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 made it impossible for the trial to proceed. Id. at 767-68; 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 more enduring, barrier to the prompt proceedings mandated by the statutory rules. 

In light of the societal context created by the foregoing, this Court should consider the following 

case-specific facts in finding excludable delay appropriate in this particular case under the ends-ofCase 2:20-mj-00018-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 2 of 5
3 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 

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 

justice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). If continued, this Court should designate a new date 

for the preliminary hearing date of May 28, 2020. United States v. Lewis, 611 F.3d 1172, 1176 (9th Cir. 

2010) (noting any pretrial continuance must be “specifically limited in time”). 

STIPULATION TO PROPOSED FINDINGS 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for a preliminary hearing on April 1, 2020. Docket 

No. 3. The defendant is out of custody on conditions of release. Docket No. 5. 

2. By this stipulation, the parties now move to continue the preliminary hearing to May 28, 

2020, and to exclude time between April 1, 2020, and May 28, 2020, under Local Code T4. 

a) The United States will be producing written reports, lab reports, audio recordings, 

and other items of evidence shortly. 

b) The additional time between April 1, 2020, and May 28, 2020, will provide 

counsel for the defendant time to review the discovery, conduct investigation and research related to the 

charges, prepare pretrial motions, and prepare for a future trial. 

c) The United States believes that failure to grant the above-requested continuance 

would deny the defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account 

the exercise of due diligence. 

d) In addition to the public health concerns cited by General Order 611 and 

presented by the evolving COVID-19 pandemic, an ends-of-justice delay is particularly apt in this case 

because the following factors are present. 

 A preliminary hearing on April 1, 2020, would require the defendant to board a 

flight from the District of Hawaii, where she resides, to the Eastern District of 

California. To the extent a flight is available at this time, taking such a flight 

would create a high-risk environment for the defendant to be exposed to COVID19. 

 Counsel or other relevant individuals have been encouraged to telework and 

minimize personal contact to the greatest extent possible. It will be difficult to 

avoid personal contact should the hearing proceed in this case because of the large 

amount of personnel required to conduct a preliminary hearing in this case, 

Case 2:20-mj-00018-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 3 of 5
4 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 

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 

including Court staff, deputies from the United States Marshals Service, and the 

lawyers who need to appear in this case. 

e) Based on the above-stated findings, the ends of justice served by continuing the 

case as requested outweigh the interest of the public and the defendant in a trial within the original date 

prescribed by the Speedy Trial Act. 

f) For the purpose of computing time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, 

et seq., within which trial must commence, the time period of April 1, 2020, to May 28, 2020, inclusive, 

is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv) [Local Code T4] because it results 

from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant’s 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 

defendants in a speedy trial. 

Nothing in this stipulation and proposed order should 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. 

The parties further stipulate that the ends of justice are served by the Court excluding time from 

April 1, 2020, to May 28, 2020, so that counsel for the defendant may have reasonable time necessary 

for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Specifically, the defense agrees that it needs time to review discovery and 

effectively evaluate the posture of the case, and conduct investigation into any possible defenses she 

may have to the charges. Id. For these reasons, the defendant, defense counsel, and the government 

stipulate and agree that the ends of justice outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a 

speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A); Local Code T4. 

DATED: March 23, 2020 /s/Jason Hitt 

JASON HITT 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

DATED: March 23, 2020 /s/Jason Hitt for Ms. Fields 

CANDICE FIELDS, ESQ. 

Counsel for defendant 

Authorized to sign for Ms. Fields 

on March 23, 2020 

Case 2:20-mj-00018-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 4 of 5
5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING

PRELIMINARY HEARING AND EXCLUDING TIME 

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 

Based upon the representations by counsel and the stipulation of the parties, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that: 

1. The Court finds good cause to extend the Preliminary Hearing in United States v. Keko 

Olani, Case No. 2:20-mj-00018-KJN, from April 1, 2020, to May 28, 2020, at 2:00 p.m. pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5.1(d); and 

2. Based upon the representations and stipulation of the parties, the court finds that the time 

exclusion under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) and Local Code T4 applies and the ends of justice outweigh 

the interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial based upon the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Accordingly, time under the Speedy Trial Act shall be excluded up to and 

including May 28, 2020. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATE: March 23, 2020. ______________________________ 

EDMUND F. BRENNAN 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Case 2:20-mj-00018-KJN Document 11 Filed 03/24/20 Page 5 of 5