Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00428/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00428-12/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bartholomew Joseph Alexis
Defendant
Tommy Tzeman Chow
Defendant
I Ching Chu
Defendant
Theodore Honniball
Defendant
Jeffrey Randall Joe
Defendant
Genaro Valentine Lopez
Defendant
Edgar Allen Sanchez
Defendant
Edwin Gordon Toy
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff
Phat Van Vuong
Defendant
Richard Wong
Defendant

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

KEVIN V. RYAN (CASBN 118321)

United States Attorney

MARK L. KROTOSKI (CASBN 138549)

Chief, Criminal Division

ANDREW M. SCOBLE (CASBN 124940)

ALEXIS HUNTER (NYSBN 3939824)

Assistant United States Attorneys

450 Golden Gate Ave. 

San Francisco, California 94102

Telephone: (415) 436-7249

Fax: (415) 436-7234

E-Mail: andrew.scoble@usdoj.gov

alexis.hunter@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

RICHARD WONG,

BARTHOLOMEW JOSEPH ALEXIS,

TOMMY TZEMAN CHOW,

I CHING CHU,

THEODORE HONNIBALL,

JEFFREY RANDALL JOE,

GENARO VALENTINE LOPEZ,

EDGAR ALLEN SANCHEZ,

EDWIN GORDON TOY, and

PHAT VAN VUONG,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No.: CR 06-0428 SI

[PROPOSED] ORDER EXCLUDING

TIME FROM SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

COMPUTATION 

All defendants except Bart Alexis and Edgar Allen Sanchez (who remain fugitives) and I

Ching Chu and Genaro Lopez (whose appearances had been waived by stipulation and order)

appeared before the Court on October 20, 2006 at 11:00 a.m.

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 79 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 1 of 4
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 80 Filed 10/26/06 Page 1 of 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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 2

At the hearing, the Court set a trial date for the first trial group. The trial of defendants

Phat Van Vuong, Tommy Chow and Theodore Honniball will commence on April 16, 2007 at

8:30 a.m. By November 13, 2006, the government is to inform defense counsel which

documents apply to their case, with descriptions and Bates numbers of the documents. The

Pretrial Conference will take place on April 3, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. Jencks material is to be

produced on or before February 28, 2006. Defendants shall set pretrial motions pursuant to the

applicable Local Rules when they are ready.

For the remaining defendants, the Court set a status hearing and pretrial motions hearing 

date of December 15, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. All defense motions are to be filed and hand served by

November 24, 2006. Government oppositions are to be filed and hand served by December 6,

2006. Defense replies (if any) are to be filed and hand served by December 12, 2006. The

parties shall hand serve Chambers with a courtesy copy of each filing.

 The parties (with the exception of defendant Vuong) agreed in open Court, with their

attorneys’ concurrence, that this case should be declared legally and factually complex, and that it

is appropriate to exclude from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation the entire

period from October 20, 2006 through and including December 15, 2006. The parties have

represented that the underlying investigation pertains to three related prosecutions, all of which

stem from the same wiretap investigation. The parties have also represented that the three cases

in the aggregate involve voluminous discovery (up to 150,000 pages, taking into account seized

computer data), include wiretap materials which pertain to some defendants in this case, and

involve search warrants and investigations by a number of local, state, and federal law

enforcement agencies. Further, this case encompasses ten defendants. Accordingly, the parties

agreed, the period from October 20, 2006 through and including December 15, 2006, should be

excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, because the legal and

factual complexity of the case, the volume of discovery and the number of defendants render it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the trial within the

otherwise applicable time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act. Further, the parties agreed that

failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants continuity of

counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 79 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 2 of 4
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 80 Filed 10/26/06 Page 2 of 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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 3

exercise of due diligence.

Further, with the exception of defendant Phat Van Vuong, whose prior speedy trial

objections have been raised and previously determined by this Court, the defendants going to

trial on April 16, 2007 agreed to a Speedy Trial continuance on similar grounds for the period

from October 20, 2006 through and including April 16, 2007. Specifically, they agreed that the

legal and factual complexity of the case, the volume of discovery and the number of defendants

(which includes nine defendants named in the conspiracy charge in Count One) render it

unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the trial within the

otherwise applicable time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act. Further, they agreed that

failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the defendants continuity of

counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the

exercise of due diligence.

Based upon the above-described representations and the parties’ agreement in open

Court, THE COURT FINDS THAT the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from

October 20, 2006 through and including December 15, 2006 outweigh the best interest of the

public and the defendants in a speedy trial, and that the case is so legally and factually complex,

due to the nature of the prosecution (including the volume and range of discovery, and the nature

of the underlying investigation) and the number of defendants, that it is unreasonable to expect

adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings and for the trial within the otherwise applicable

time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) &

(B)(ii). THE COURT FURTHER FINDS THAT failure to grant the requested continuance

would unreasonably deny the defendants continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary

for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(iv). 

With respect to defendants Vuong, Chow and Honniball, THE COURT FINDS THAT

the ends of justice served by granting a continuance from October 20, 2006 through and

including April 16, 2007 outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendants in a speedy

trial, and that the case is so legally and factually complex, due to the nature of the prosecution

(including the volume and range of discovery, and the nature of the underlying investigation) and

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 79 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 3 of 4
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 80 Filed 10/26/06 Page 3 of 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

ORDER EXCLUDING TIME 4

the number of defendants, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial

proceedings and for the trial within the otherwise applicable time limits set forth in the Speedy

Trial Act, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(ii). THE COURT FURTHER

FINDS THAT failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny the

defendants continuity of counsel and the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,

taking into account the exercise of due diligence, within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §

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

Accordingly, THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. This case is continued to December 15, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. for further status and

for hearing on defense motions. Defendants shall file and hand serve all motions by November

24, 2006; the government shall file and hand serve its oppositions by December 6, 2006; and the

defendants shall file and hand serve their reply briefs (if any) by December 12, 2006. All parties

are ordered to hand serve courtesy copies to Chambers on or before these same dates.

2. The period from October 20, 2006 through and including December 15, 2006 is

excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §

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

3. The trial of defendants Phat Van Vuong, Tommy Chow and Theodore Honniball

will commence on April 16, 2007. By November 13, 2006, the government is to inform defense

counsel which documents apply to their case, with document descriptions and Bates numbers. 

The Pretrial Conference will take place on April 3, 2006 at 3:30 p.m. Jencks material is to be

produced on or before February 28, 2006. Defendants shall set pretrial motions pursuant to the

applicable Local Rules when they are ready.

4. As to defendants Vuong, Chow and Honniball, the period from October 20, 2006

through and including April 16, 2007 is excluded from the otherwise applicable Speedy Trial Act

computation, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(A) & (B)(ii) & (iv).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: 

HON. SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 79 Filed 10/25/2006 Page 4 of 4
 Case 3:06-cr-00428-SI Document 80 Filed 10/26/06 Page 4 of 4