Opinion ID: 748851
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuance from April 16 to June 11, 1996.

Text: 36 Pursuant to a Stipulation Re: Continuance of Trial Date, Excludable Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, and Disclosure of Jury Panel (RE 105-09), the district court continued the trial from April 16 to June 11, 1996. (RE 110-12.) This continuance receives the most attention from Shetty. 37 Approximately two weeks prior to the April 16 trial date, the Government requested that a deposition be taken of Connie Hansen, a witness who was scheduled for major surgery on April 11, 1996, for which she would require six to eight weeks of recuperation. Hansen had worked in Shetty's office and he did not want to give up his right to confront her in front of a jury. During the hearing on the motion to take Hansen's deposition, defense counsel specifically said, I'd be remiss if I didn't, on behalf of my client, request a continuance of the trial until that witness is available. Tr. at 6 (April 4, 1996) (emphasis added). And, although the Government indicated it was willing to proceed to trial without Hansen, it also indicated that it would absolutely like to have her testify. Id. at 14-15 (emphasis added). 38 Ultimately, the district court determined that the trial should be continued. The court specifically asked: Okay. I gather from what I am hearing that there is no defense objection to putting it over to June, correct? Id. at 30. Both defense counsel answered: Correct. Id. at 31. In addition, defense counsel further stated: 39 I did speak with [the AUSA] off the record, and for purposes of Speedy Trial Act, I am prepared to enter into a stipulation on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant and [co-defense counsel] will also sign the stipulation to the effect that there is excludable time based on the unavailability of that particular witness, and that would be from the date of the proposed surgery, if I'm not mistaken ... to the date of trial including her recovery period as well. 40 Id. 41 Then, during the same hearing, when issues related to the selection of a new jury panel and the compilation of audit information arose, the AUSA requested an additional six weeks continuance. And, as to that request, the district court specifically inquired: Does the defense counsel disagree with any of the grounds [for the continuance] that counsel has stated? Id. at 41. Defense counsel responded: No, your honor. Id. 42 Despite Shetty's arguments that he was not the moving force behind the granting of the continuance or that Connie Hansen was neither an unavailable nor an essential witness, we find no violation of the Speedy Trial Act. We reject these arguments largely because even when given two direct opportunities to object to a continuance of the trial, the defense voiced no objection and affirmatively represented that the unavailability of a particular witness provided grounds for a finding of excludable time. In addition, we reject Shetty's arguments based upon the following items in the record: the Stipulation Re[:] Continuance of Trial Date, Excludable Time Under the Speedy Trial Act, and Disclosure of Jury Panel filed by the parties on April 19, 1996; the district court's corresponding order filed April 23, 1996; the Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment, filed June 12, 1996; and the Minute Order filed July 1, 1996 (incorporating the Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Reconsider, filed June 24, 1996). Finally, we note that after Shetty and his counsel stipulated to the facts underlying the district court's findings of excludable time, at no time, either orally or in writing, did the defense attempt to withdraw its stipulation or request a trial date earlier than June 10, 1996. 43