Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00712/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cr-00712-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold Harrison
Defendant
USA
Plaintiff

Document Text:

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

HAROLD ROSENTHAL, SBN 68380

Attorney at Law

803 Hearst Avenue

Berkeley, CA 94710

Tele: (510) 981-1800

Fax: (510) 981-1821

Attorney for Defendant

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF 

CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

vs.

HAROLD HARRISON,

Defendant

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. CR 06-00712 JSW

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]

ORDER

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties that good cause exists to 

continue the dates applicable to the filing of defendant’s pretrial motions. The parties 

believe that good cause exists for the following reasons: 

Since January 8, 2007, the date previously set for the defendant to file pre-trial 

motions, counsel for the defendant has had the following obligations which he has had to 

fulfill and which he did not anticipate:

The most significant of these concern a matter pending in the San Joaquin County 

Superior in which the defendant is charged with embezzling several hundred thousand 

dollars. That matter is entitled People v. Jan Ann Pestana. The defendant was originally 

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 1 of 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

charged with forty-one counts of embezzlement. It was anticipated that the case would 

settle. However, rather than settle, the People added an additional twenty-one counts of 

embezzlement, and the matter has remained set for a three week trial in Stockton on 

Monday, February 5, 2007. Thus, counsel has been heavily involved in trial preparation, 

and this has made it difficult for him to complete his pretrial motions in the instant case 

this week. It was anticipated that he would be able to do so, but the Pestana matter has 

turned out to be more complicated than expected.

Additionally, counsel began a preliminary hearing in the Marin County Superior 

Court in a felony drug and child endangerment prosecution entitled People v. Zech on 

January 5, 2007. It was anticipated that the matter would be completed in no more than 

one day. However, the Zech matter was not completed in one day, and consumed another 

two full court days, in part because of the illness of a witness. The matter did not 

conclude until this week, when it consumed a day of counsel’s time. 

Additionally, while not unanticipated, counsel during January has had a great 

number of commitments which he has fulfilled in the following matter. He has filed a 

complex suppression motion in a matter pending in this district before Judge Armstrong 

entitled United States v. Pourmohamad, an internet gambling case which raises novel 

issues of law regarding the legality of gambling enterprises operating outside of the 

United States. He has engaged in settlement negotiations in a mail fraud, money 

laundering, and tax evasion investigation in which the subjects of the investigation, Uri 

Zemach and Moshe Sela, are presently in Israel. He has also engaged in settlement 

negotiations in another matter pending in this district before Judge Illston entitled United 

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 2 of 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

States v. Huerta, in which the defendant faces a twenty year mandatory minimum 

sentence and is in custody, thus requiring extremely time consuming visits to the facility 

in which he is incarcerated. Additionally, a matter in which a long time, prominent East 

Bay teacher at a private school who additionally is the leader of a children’s choir, who 

had been arrested for molesting a student several months ago, but in which charges were 

not filed, was only this week charged with a violation California Penal Code § 288a in 

the Contra Costa Superior Court. (Counsel is prepared to disclose the name of this 

individual to the Court and the United States, but prefers not to do so in this publicly 

available pleading in light of the nature of the prosecution and the privacy interests of 

both the alleged victim and the defendant.)

Additionally, the defendant in this matter, Harold Harrison, will be released 

Monday from the half-way house in which he has resided since several days after his 

arrest. He will return to Humboldt County where he will be available to accompany his 

counsel to the locations of the search and the alleged cultivation of marijuana in this 

matter, both of which are necessary for counsel to provide the best representation of this 

defendant in pretrial motions and trial.

There has been one prior extension of the dates set for pretrial motions in this 

matter, and counsel had hoped that this matter could retain the present hearing date as he 

completed his pleadings this week, and was prepared to forfeit time from the reply 

pleadings. That has proved impossible.

Accordingly, the parties stipulate that the dates previously set in this matter be 

vacated and the following schedule be instituted in this matter.

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 3 of 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant’s Motions Due: February 27, 2007

Government’s Response Due: March 13, 2007

Defendant’s Reply Due: March 20, 2007

Hearing on Motions: March 29, 2007 at 2:30 p.m.1

Additionally, counsel had previously stipulated and the Court had ordered that all 

time through the date presently set for the hearing on defendant’s motion, March 1, 2007, 

as well as any additional time which might be required for the Court to take the motion

under submission and render a decision, is excludable under the Speedy Trial Act, and 

specifically under 18 USC § 3161(h)(8)(A), insofar as the ends of justice outweigh the 

best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, because such time is 

reasonably necessary for effective preparation of defense counsel, taking into account the 

exercise of due diligence, as set forth in 18 USC § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv); and as delay 

resulting from a pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of 

the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion, as set forth in 18 USC § 

3161(h)(8)(F). With the new hearing date set on either March 29, 2007 or a date 

thereafter convenient to the Court, counsel for both parties hereby enter into the identical 

stipulation, that time be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act calculation through March 

29, 2007, or any date thereafter upon which the Court resolves the defendant’s pretrial 

motions, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3151(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the effective preparation of 

 

1 Or on any date which is convenient to the Court...

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 4 of 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

defense counsel, and 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(F), for the Court’s consideration of the 

defendant’s motions.

It is so stipulated.

Dated: January 31, 2007

____________/S/_______________________

KIRSTIN M. AULT, AUSA

Attorney for Plaintiff United States of America

It is so stipulated.

Dated: January 31, 2007

____________/S/_____________________

HAROLD ROSENTHAL

Attorney for Defendant Harold Harrison

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 5 of 6
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

11

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

It is so ORDERED, and the Court makes the findings set forth in the above 

stipulation.

Dated:

 _____________________________________ 

THE HONORABLE JEFFREY S. WHITE

Judge of the United States District Court for the 

Northern District of California

February 1, 2007

Case 3:06-cr-00712-JSW Document 28 Filed 02/01/07 Page 6 of 6