US MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME 1

17-0028 JST

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

DAVID L. ANDERSON (CABN 149604)

United States Attorney

HALLIE HOFFMAN (CABN 210020)

Chief, Criminal Division

ROBERT DAVID REES (CABN 229441)

ALEXIS LOEB (CABN 269895)

Assistant United States Attorneys

450 Golden Gate Avenue, Box 36055

San Francisco, California 94102-3495

Telephone: (415) 436-7210

FAX: (415) 436-7027

Email: robert.rees@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for United States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v.

JEHOADDAN WILSON,

Defendant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 17-0028 JST

UNITED STATES’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND 

MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME UNDER THE 

SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

Next Date: May 1, 2020

Court: Hon. Jon S. Tigar

Today, the Court issued a Clerk’s Notice continuing the status hearing in the above-captioned 

case from March 20, 2020 to May 1, 2020. Presumably this was done because of the ongoing issues 

surrounding the novel coronavirus. As a result, the United States hereby moves this Court for an order 

excluding time under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 from March 6, 2020 to May 1, 2020.

The Court may appropriately exclude time on ends-of-justice grounds. The country’s public 

health interest in stemming the spread of COVID-19 outweighs the interest of the “public and the 

defendant in a speedy trial.” § 31671(h)(7)(A); see also Furlow v. United States, 644 F.2d 764 (9th Cir. 

1981) (finding no Speedy Trial Act violation where the district court granted an ends-of-justice 

continuance following the eruption of Mt. St. Helens). The Court, in General Order No. 72, has 

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 215 Filed 03/18/20 Page 1 of 3
US MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME 2

17-0028 JST

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

recognized that the ends of justices are served by ordering continuances due to the effect that the public 

health recommendations have on the availability of counsel, the court, and any potential jurors.

A failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense counsel the 

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

because his/her ability to meet with the client and review discovery may be constrained by shelter-inplace and quarantines. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv). Moreover, while Wilson is expected to obtain counsel this 

Friday, March 20, 2020, she does not currently have counsel, such that this period should be excluded 

on continuity of counsel grounds, and the new counsel will require time for effective preparation. Id. 

An exclusion is also appropriate for the period from March 6, 2020 to March 20, 2020 for continuity of 

counsel and to allow the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel. Id.

The government also requests that nothing in this motion shall preclude a finding that other 

provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that time should be excluded from its provisions.

DATED: March 18, 2020 Respectfully submitted,

DAVID L. ANDERSON

United States Attorney

____________/s____________

ROBERT DAVID REES

ALEXIS LOEB

Assistant United States Attorneys

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 215 Filed 03/18/20 Page 2 of 3
US MOTION TO EXCLUDE TIME 3

17-0028 JST

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

[PROPOSED] ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court finds that exclusion from the time limits applicable under 

18 U.S.C. § 3161 for the period from March 18, 2020, through May 1, 2020, is warranted and that the

ends of justice served by the continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a 

speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The country’s public health interest in stemming the spread of 

COVID-19 outweighs the interest of the “public and the defendant in a speedy trial,” as noted in General 

Order No. 72. Also, a failure to grant the requested continuance would unreasonably deny defense 

counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due 

diligence, because his or her ability to meet with the client and prepare for trial is constrained by the 

shelter-in-place order, and because new counsel is expected to be appointed on March 20, 2020 and will 

require time thereafter to prepare. Finally, an exclusion of time is warranted for continuity of counsel 

and to allow time for the defendant to obtain counsel because the defendant does not currently have 

counsel.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: ________________________

HON. JON S. TIGAR

United States District Judge

Case 4:17-cr-00028-JST Document 215 Filed 03/18/20 Page 3 of 3