Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133-2/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

McGREGOR W. SCOTT

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 JULY 6, 2020 

STATUS CONFERENCE TO OCTOBER 19, 

2020; ORDER

Ctrm: 7

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto

This case is set for a status conference on July 6, 2020. On April 17, 2020, this Court issued 

General Order 617, which suspended all jury trials in the Eastern District of California scheduled to 

commence before June 15, 2020, and allowed district judges to continue all criminal matters to a date 

after June 1. This and previous General Orders were entered to address public health concerns related to 

COVID-19. On May 13, 2020, this Court issued General Order 618, which superseded General Order 

617 and extended the court’s “judicial emergency for an additional one-year period and suspending the 

time limits [in criminal cases] of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c) until May 2, 2021.” 

///

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/30/20 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

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 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. 

///

///

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/30/20 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

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-ofjustice exception, § 3161(h)(7) (Local Code T4). 1

 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 Gary L. Huss, counsel for 

defendant Robert Frenchie McGriff (“defendant”), that this action’s Monday, July 6, 2020 status 

conference be continued to Tuesday, October 19, 2020, 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. The government has thus far provided many thousands of pages of written discovery to 

defense counsel. This discovery includes investigative reports, probation and criminal 

history records, search warrant documents, voluminous records relating to defendant’s social 

media accounts, and information about defendant. Defense counsel continues with his

analysis of these items. 

2. Since the parties’ last status conference last March, wherein they advised the court that they 

deemed it prudent for defendant to be psychologically examined and that defense counsel 

would work toward hiring a psychologist to examine him, the defense has been diligently 

working toward accomplishing this goal. A psychologist has been hired, and he has worked 

through the voluminous discovery in this case. In light of the current pandemic, however, he 

has faced difficulties arranging for the psychologist to meet with defendant at the detention 

facility at Lerdo in a private setting. Defense counsel will continue to work toward arranging 

1 The parties note that General Order 612 acknowledges that a district judge may make 

“additional findings to support the exclusion” at the judge’s discretion. General Order 612, ¶ 5 (E.D. 

Cal. March 18, 2020).

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/30/20 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

for defendant to be examined and a report prepared, and if he faces continued difficulties in 

this regard he will advise the court.

3. Once defendant is analyzed and a report provided, counsel for the parties will promptly 

address the extent it is possible to resolve this matter through a plea agreement.

4. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from July 6, 2020, through October 19, 

2020, 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.

5. 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: June 29, 2020

By:

MCGREGOR W. SCOTT

United States Attorney

/s/ BRIAN W. ENOS

BRIAN W. ENOS

Assistant United States Attorney

(As authorized 6/29/20)

Dated: June 29, 2020 By: /s/ Gary L. Huss

Gary L. Huss, Esq.

Attorney for Defendant

 Robert Frenchie McGriff

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/30/20 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

O R D E R

IT IS ORDERED that the status hearing currently set for July 6, 2020, at 1:00 pm is continued 

until October 19, 2020, at 1pm. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from July 6, 2020 through October 19, 

2020, 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 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.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 30, 2020 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto .

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 22 Filed 06/30/20 Page 5 of 5