Court filing
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND FINDINGS REGARDING EXCLUDABLE TIME PERIODS PURSUANT… — USA v. Ayvazyan et al (Dkt. 103)
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Central District of California |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2020-12-22 |
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California · No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW · Doc. 103 · 2020-12-22 · Docket on CourtListener
Summary
An order continuing the trial date and making findings of excludable time under the Speedy Trial Act in United States v. Richard Ayvazyan, Marietta Terabelian, Artur Ayvazyan and Tamara Dadyan, No. 2:20-cr-00579-SVW, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, filed December 22, 2020 as Document 103. The court recites that the indictment was filed November 17, 2020, that all four defendants are released on bond, and that the government has produced approximately 3,834 pages of discovery. It reviews COVID-19 general orders and Chief Judge orders suspending jury trials and finds that the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the interest in a speedy trial. The order continues trial from January 12, 2021 to May 4, 2021 and excludes time under 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i), and (h)(7)(B)(iv). It is signed by Judge Stephen V. Wilson.
Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used
Full text
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
RICHARD AYVAZYAN,
aka “Richard Avazian” and
“Iuliia Zhadko,”
MARIETTA TERABELIAN,
aka “Marietta Abelian” and
“Viktoria Kauichko,”
ARTUR AYVAZYAN,
aka “Arthur Ayvazyan,” and
TAMARA DADYAN,
Defendants.
No. CR 20-579-SVW
ORDER CONTINUING TRIAL DATE AND
FINDINGS REGARDING EXCLUDABLE
TIME PERIODS PURSUANT TO SPEEDY
TRIAL ACT
[PROPOSED] TRIAL DATE: 05-04-21
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:698
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
Having considered the United States of America’s Ex Parte
Application for: (1) Continuance of the Trial Date; and (2) Findings
of Excludable Delay Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, as well as the
Central District of California’s General Orders Nos. 20-02, 20-03,
20-09, and 20-12, and Chief Judge Orders Nos. 20-042, 20-044, 20-
097, and 20-179, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS
FOLLOWS:
1.
The Indictment in this case was filed on November 17,
2020. Defendants RICHARD AYVAZYAN (“R. AYVAZYAN”) and MARIETTA
TERABELIAN first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in
which the charges in this case were pending on December 4, 2020.
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174, originally required
that the trial as to defendants R. AYVAZYAN and TERABELIAN commence
on or before June 2, 2021. Defendants ARTUR AYVAZYAN and TAMARA
DADYAN first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in
which the charges in this case were pending on November 5, 2020.
The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, 3174, originally required
that the trial as to defendants A. AYVAZYAN and DADYAN commence on
or before May 16, 2021.
2.
On December 3 and 4, 2020, the Court set a trial date of
January 12, 2021.
3.
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAZYAN, and
DADYAN are all released on bond pending trial. The government
estimate that its case-in-chief in this matter will last
approximately five to seven days. All four defendants are joined
for trial and a severance has not been granted.
4.
Defendants R. AYVAZYAN, TERABELIAN, A. AYVAYZAN, and
DADYAN are charged with violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:699
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
to commit wire and bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud); and
18 U.S.C. § 1344(2) (bank fraud). (CR 32.) Defendant R. AYVAZYAN
is also charged with a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A(a)(1)
(aggravated identity theft). The government has produced discovery
to the defense, including approximately 3,834 pages of documents,
reports, and photographs, and is in the process of producing
additional written materials to defendants. The government has also
made physical evidence seized during the execution of 11 search
warrants on November 5, 2020, available for the defense to inspect
and copy, and is in the process of providing defendants with copies
of any accessible digital devices that were seized.
5.
On March 13, 2020, following the President’s declaration
of a national emergency in response to COVID-19, the Court entered a
General Order suspending jury selection and jury trials. C.D. Cal.
General Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order
Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020). That
suspension remains in place until a “date to be determined.” C.D.
Cal. General Order No. 20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency,
Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Aug. 6,
2020); see also C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, In
Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Activation of Continuity of
Operations Plan, at 3 (Dec. 7, 2020) (“Jury trials remain
suspended.”).
6.
Also on March 13, 2020, the Court imposed health- and
travel-related limitations on access to Court facilities. C.D. Cal.
General Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order
Concerning Access to Court Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020). On March 19,
2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the Court instituted its
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:700
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
Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), closing all Central District
of California courthouses to the public (except for hearings on
criminal duty matters) and taking other emergency actions. C.D.
Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020). On March
29 and 31, recognizing COVID-19’s continued spread in the community,
the Court took further action: implementing video-teleconference and
telephonic hearings and suspending all grand-jury proceedings. C.D.
Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) and 20-
044 (Mar. 31, 2020).
7.
On August 6 and September 14, 2020, the Court slightly
relaxed its restrictions to permit in-person criminal hearings for
defendants who do not consent to remote appearance and to allow up
to 10 members of the public to attend. General Order No. 20-09, at
2-3; General Order No. 20-12, at 2 (Sept. 14, 2020). However, on
December 7, 2020, following “an unprecedented surge of COVID-19
cases, hospitalizations, and test positivity rates in the Central
District,” the Court reinstituted its COOP Plan. Order of the Chief
Judge No. 20-179, at 1-2. Pursuant to the COOP Plan, from December
9, 2020 at 5:00 p.m. through and including January 8, 2021, all
grand jury proceedings are suspended and court facilities are once
again closed to the public except for hearings on certain criminal
duty matters. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-179, at 2-3.
8.
These orders were imposed based on (1) the California
Governor’s declaration of a public-health emergency in response to
the spread of COVID-19, as well as (2) the Centers for Disease
Control’s advice regarding reducing the possibility of exposure to
the virus and slowing the spread of the disease. See, e.g., General
Order 20-02, at 1.
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:701
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
9.
Consistent with this Court’s orders, the Judicial Council
of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals declared an emergency in the
Central District of California, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3174. In re
Approval of Judicial Emergency in the Central Dist. of Cal., 955
F.3d 1140 (9th Cir. 2020). The Judicial Council’s order recognizes
that “under the emergency declarations of national, state, and local
governments, as well as recommendations from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention to convene groups of no more than 10 people,
the Court is unable to obtain an adequate spectrum of . . . grand
jurors.” Id. at 1141.
10.
Local and state governments have adopted similar policies.
On March 19, 2020, both Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti and
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders requiring
residents to “stay home,” subject to limited exceptions. California
Executive Order N-33-20 (March 19, 2020); accord Safer at Home,
Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority ¶ 1
(March 19, 2020). Subject to similarly limited exceptions, all
travel was prohibited. Safer At Home ¶ 4. Non-essential businesses
requiring in-person attendance by workers were ordered to cease
operations. Id. ¶ 2. All schools in the Los Angeles Unified School
District remain closed to in-person classes.
11.
On December 3, 2020, the Acting State Public Health
Officer of the State of California issued a Regional Stay at Home
Order based on the “unprecedented surge in the level of community
spread of COVID-19.” California Regional Stay at Home Order
12/03/2020 (Dec. 3, 2020). That order went into effect on December
6, 2020 and restricts business and social activities, including by
suspending outdoor restaurant operations, in California regions for
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:702
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
which ICU bed capacity is less than 15%. As the Chief Judge’s
December 7, 2020, Order reactivating the COOP Plan recognizes, ICU
availability in the Southern California region, which includes the
entire Central District of California, fell below 15% as soon as the
Regional Stay at Home Order went into effect. Order of the Chief
Judge No. 20-179, at 2.
12.
Given the grave public-health concerns discussed in the
Court’s General Orders and the Chief Judge’s Orders, and given the
facts set forth in the government’s Ex Parte Application (which the
Court incorporates fully by reference), the ends of justice served
by the continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and
defendant in a speedy trial.
13.
Failure to grant the continuance would likely make a
continuation of the proceeding impossible or result in a miscarriage
of justice.
14.
Failure to continue this case would also likely put
parties, witnesses, jurors, counsel, and court personnel at
unnecessary risk.
15.
Due to the restrictions imposed by current public-health
concerns -- particularly given the complexity of this case -- it is
also unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial
proceedings or for the trial itself within the Speedy Trial Act time
limits. Thus, denial of a continuance is likely to deny all counsel
reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into
account the exercise of due diligence.
16.
The continuance is not based on congestion of the Court’s
calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorneys
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:703
7
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
for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the
attorneys for the government to obtain available witnesses.
Accordingly, the Court finds that there are facts that support
a continuance of the trial date in this matter, and there is good
cause for a finding of excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161.
THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:
1.
The trial in this matter is continued from January 12,
2021, to May 4, 2021.
2.
The time period of November 18, 2021, to May 4, 2021,
inclusive, is excluded in computing the time within which the trial
must commence, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i),
and (h)(7)(B)(iv).
3.
Defendants shall appear in Courtroom 10A of the Federal
Courthouse, 350 West 1st Street, Los Angeles, California on May 4,
2021, at 9:00 a.m.
4.
Nothing in this Order shall preclude a finding that other
provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time
periods are excluded from the period within which trial must
commence. Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of
the Speedy Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of
additional time periods from the period within which trial must
commence.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE
HONORABLE STEPHEN V. WILSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
December 22, 2020
Case 2:20-cr-00579-SVW Document 103 Filed 12/22/20 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:704File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.cacd.802533.103.0.pdf
- Size
- 144,623 bytes
- SHA-256
- c82430803344bc46493a1bba19149d7a99b952cd585f54f29fde4d74ebe8b8bc
- Original
- PACER (login required)