Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cr-00133-7/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 JLT/SKO 

STIPULATION TO: (1) VACATE JULY 20, 2022 

STATUS CONFERENCE AND (2) SET MARCH 

13, 2023 TRIAL DATE; ORDER

Ctrm: 7 

Hon. Sheila K. Oberto 

 

THE PARTIES HEREBY STIPULATE, through their respective counsel, Assistant United 

States Attorney, Brian W. Enos, on behalf of the government, and Assistant Federal Defender, Eric V. 

Kersten, on behalf of defendant Robert Frenchie McGriff (“McGriff”), that this action’s: (1) July 20, 

2022, status conference be vacated; and (2) a trial date be set for Tuesday, March 13, 2023, at 8:30 am in 

Courtroom 4. 

This case is set for a status conference on Wednesday, July 20, 2022. Dkt. 60. 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 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 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 

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 

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. 

On May 26, 2021, and in part “given the progress in vaccination programs and the resulting 

lowering of risk to public health as evidenced by reductions in rates of infection, hospitalization and 

death due to COVID-19”, this Court issued General Order 631. Within General Order 631, this Court: 

(1) reopened the court to the public, (2) gave each judge the authority to “determine whether to hold 

proceedings over which that Judge presides in person in a courtroom or by telephone or 

videoconference” and (3) if “any Judge [elects to conduct] any criminal proceeding by telephone or 

video conference . . . [the Court] continues to authorize the use of telephone or video conference with a 

defendant’s consent.” General Order 631, ¶ ¶ 1, 4 and 5. (E.D. Cal. May 26, 2021). The courts above 

protocols were recently extended through September 25, 2022. General Order 652 (E.D. Cal. June 27, 

2022). 

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-ofCase 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 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 

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.

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 

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) 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 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 

(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 base this stipulation on good cause and therefore ask the court to endorse this 

stipulation by way of formal order. Specifically, 

1. The grand jury returned an indictment regarding this matter on June 20, 2019, alleging counts 

including attempted sex trafficking of children, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1591(a) and 

1594(a) [Count One]; and Attempted Transportation of a Minor with Intent to Engage in 

Criminal Sexual Activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2423(a) and (3) [Count Two]. Dkt. 7. 

On April 28, 2022, the court issued an order directing the parties to “be prepared to select a 

mutually agreeable trial date at the next status conference.” Dkt. 60. 

2. The parties have since compared respective calendars and met and conferred about available 

trial dates for both parties. Counsel for the government also ascertained the availability of 

key witnesses, including an agent set to go on maternity leave in several weeks. The parties 

have also cleared the March 13, 2023, trial date with chambers. In light of these efforts, the 

parties ask the court to endorse their stipulation to set the commencement of trial on Monday, 

March 13, 2023, at 8:30 am. The parties estimate that trial should be completed within 4-5 

full days. 

3. The parties continue to be engaged in plea negotiations and are hopeful that an agreement 

might be reached that will eliminate the need for trial. If this matter is not resolved prior to 

trial, however, defense counsel will need additional time to investigate the case including 

potential defenses, hire and interact with experts, review electronic evidence in accord with 

18 U.S.C. § 3509 of the Adam Walsh Act, contact potential witnesses, complete its review of 

discovery and supplemental discovery, and communicate with Mr. McGriff. Counsel for the 

government will ensure that any additional information that it locates and should be produced 

pursuant to Rule 16 is indeed identified and produced. 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 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 

4. The parties identified the March 13, 2023, trial date in light of its analyses of relevant trial 

calendars, agent and other witness availability, as well as a reluctance to participate absent 

evidence of their safety, as at least one of this matter’s attorneys is a member of a vulnerable 

population group. 

5. The parties therefore stipulate that the period of time from July 20, 2022, through March 13, 

2023 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 endorse the contents of this stipulation would deny him the reasonable time 

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

6. 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: July 12, 2022 

By: 

PHILIP A. TALBERT 

United States Attorney 

/s/ Brian W. Enos 

 Brian W. Enos 

Assistant United States Attorney 

(As authorized 7/12/22) 

Dated: July 12, 2022 By: /s/ Eric V. Kersten 

 Eric V. Kersten, Esq. 

 Attorney for Defendant 

 Robert Frenchie McGriff 

 

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 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 SO ORDERED. 

(1) the status hearing currently set for Wednesday, July 20, 2022, at 1:00 pm in 

Courtroom 8 is vacated; and 

(2) trial is set to commence in Courtroom 4 on Monday, March 13, 2023, at 8:30 am. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT the period of time from July 20, 2022 through March 13, 

2023 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.

Dated: 

Honorable Sheila K. Oberto 

 United States Magistrate Judge 

7/13/2022

Case 1:19-cr-00133-KJM Document 63 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 6