Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00181/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00181-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jesse Moses Escano
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

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

JUSTIN J. GILIO

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

This case is set for status conference on March 30, 2020. 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.

Although the General Order 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”).

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff,

vs.

JESSE MOSES ESCANO,

 Defendant.

Case No. 1:19-cr-00181-LJO-SKO

STIPULATION TO CONTINUE STATUS 

CONFERENCE; ORDER 

JUDGE: Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

 

Case 1:19-cr-00181-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 5
-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

Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order to Continue Status Conference

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-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 Order 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-of-justice exception, § 3161(h)(7). If continued, this Court should designate a new date 

for the 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

Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel of record, and defendant, 

by and through defendant’s counsel of record, hereby stipulate as follows: 

1. By previous order, this matter was set for status on March 30, 2020. 

Case 1:19-cr-00181-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 5
-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

Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order to Continue Status Conference

2. By this stipulation, defendant now moves to continue the status conference until 

May 18, 2020, and to exclude time between March 30, 2020, and May 18, 2020. 

3. The parties agree and stipulate, and request that the Court find the following: 

a) The government has represented that the discovery associated with this 

case, including investigation reports and hours of digital media, has been produced 

directly to counsel.

b) Counsel for defendant desires additional time to consult with his client, 

review the discovery, investigate, and continue to pursue a resolution of the case.

c) Counsel for defendant believes that failure to grant the above-requested 

continuance would deny him/her the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, 

taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

d) The government does not object to the continuance.

e) 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 counsel have been encourages to telework and minimize personal 

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

the hearing proceed. 

f) 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. 

g) 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 March 30, 2020 to 

May 18, 2020, inclusive, is deemed excludable pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), 

B(iv) 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 defendant in a speedy trial.

4. Nothing in this stipulation and order shall preclude a finding that other provisions 

Case 1:19-cr-00181-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 5
-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

Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order to Continue Status Conference

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.

Respectfully submitted,

MCGREGOR SCOTT

United States Attorney

DATED: March 18, 2020 /s/ Justin J. Gilio

JUSTIN J. GILIO

Assistant United States Attorney

Attorney for Plaintiff

DATED: March 18, 2020 /s/ Mike McKneely

MIKE MCKNEELY

Attorney for Defendant Jesse Moses Escano

Case 1:19-cr-00181-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 03/18/20 Page 4 of 5
-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

Stipulation and [Proposed] 

Order to Continue Status Conference

O R D E R

The status conference currently scheduled for March 30, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. is hereby 

continued to May 18, 2020, at 1:00 p.m. The time period between March 30, 2020, and May 

18, 2020, is excluded under the Speedy Trial Act pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(7)(A), B(iv), 

for the reasons provided in the parties’ stipulation, as the ends of justice served by granting the 

continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00181-JLT-SKO Document 20 Filed 03/18/20 Page 5 of 5