United States v. Pierce

2:12-cr-00196 | W.D. Wash. | Nov 19, 2013

Case 2:12-cr-00196-RSL Document 129 Filed 11/19/13 Page 1 of 2

Honorable Robert S. Lasnik UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, SEATTLE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, CASE NO.: CR12-196-RSL Plaintiff, ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND PRETRIAL MOTIONS v. DUE DATE MARY PIERCE, Noted for November 19, 2013

Defendant. THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion of Defendant Mary Pierce for an order continuing the trial date and motions deadline in the above-captioned matter. The motion was not opposed by Defendant Aaron Yarbrough. The government did not oppose the motion to continue.

Having considered the facts set forth in the motion, the speedy trial waiver filed by Defendant Pierce, and the remainder of the record, the Court grants the motion to continue the trial with respect to Defendant Pierce. The Court now finds and rules as follows:

Under the Speedy Trial Act, the trial of a defendant shall commence within 70 days from the date that an indictment is made public, or from the date the defendant has appeared ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE - 1 Bernard & Bernard United States v. Mary Pierce Et. Al., CR12-0196RSL 10990 Wilshire Blvd Ste. 1175

Los Angeles, CA 90024 www.stephenbernardlaw.com

Case 2:12-cr-00196-RSL Document 129 Filed 11/19/13 Page 2 of 2 before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). Certain periods of delay are excludable from the Speedy Trial calculation. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). In particular, any period of delay resulting from a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The factors, among others, which a judge shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) are set forth in § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i)-(iv).

The parties are acting diligently and have been since the previously ordered continuance. The case involves a financial conspiracy with voluminous documentary materials. The case also involves unidentified co-conspirators, whose existence has just been discovered by counsel’s independent investigation.

As noted, the parties are working diligently, but need time to fully review and digest the materials and discuss them with their clients. Therefore, the Court finds that the ends of justice served by the granting of the requested continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant’s unopposed motion to continue is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the trial in this matter shall commence on May 27, 2014.

20 It is further ORDERED that this period of delay from entry of this order through May 21 27, 2014, will be excusable time under the Speedy Trial Act under Title 18, United State 22 Code, Section 3161(h)(7)(A). 23 Pretrial motions are to be filed no later than April 25, 2014. 24 Dated this 19th day of November, 2013. 25

A

26

Robert S. Lasnik 27 United States District Judge 28 ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE - 2 Bernard & Bernard United States v. Mary Pierce Et. Al., CR12-0196RSL 10990 Wilshire Blvd Ste. 1175

Los Angeles, CA 90024 www.stephenbernardlaw.com