Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings USA v. Jittaphol United States v. Aticha Jittaphol — U.S. District Court, D. Mass. Hearing Tr. Excerpt, 1/20/22 — USA v. Jittaphol (Dkt. 107.1)

Court filing

Hearing Tr. Excerpt, 1/20/22 — USA v. Jittaphol (Dkt. 107.1)

Summary

Transcript of the January 20, 2022 proceeding titled Waiver of Indictment and Plea to Information by Video, before the Honorable Mark L. Wolf, United States Senior District Judge, Criminal No. 21-10270-MLW, United States of America v. Aticha Jittaphol. The appearances list Elysa Q. Wan, Alyssa Tochka and Luke Goldworm for the plaintiff and Keith S. Halpern for the defendant. The Court states that it would conduct a waiver-of-indictment colloquy and then a Rule 11 colloquy, and would defer until sentencing whether to accept the plea agreement and impose the agreed-upon sentence or allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw the plea. The Court states that it has questions as to whether it is reasonably likely to accept the binding plea agreement if the presentence report is prepared.

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

Filed June 2, 2022 in USA v. Jittaphol; one of 110 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtU.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Filed2022-06-02

Cite this document

“Hearing Tr. Excerpt, 1/20/22 — USA v. Jittaphol (Dkt. 107.1).” U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, No. 1:21-cr-10270-MLW, Doc. 107-1, filed 2022-06-02. Archived at Pandemic Darlings, https://pandemicdarlings.com/court-filings/full-docket-aticha-jittaphol-mad-237964/2022-06-02-gov-uscourts-mad-237964-107-1-doc-107-1/, SHA-256 a011b511e2a88c5b13990f571c88c6276233e943a8bde307a6e51e8cf1db28b3.

Search CourtListener for this docket number

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors.

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff
-VS-
Pages 1 - 51
ATICHA JITTAPHOL,

Defendant

WAVER OF INDICTMENT AND PLEA TO INFORMATION
BY VIDEO

BEFORE THE HONORABLE MARK L. WOLF
UNITED STATES SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

APPEARANCES:

ELYSA Q. WAN, ESO., Assistant United States Attorney,
Office of the United States Attorney, 1 Courthouse Way,
Room 9200, Boston, Massachusetts, 02210, for the Plaintiff.

ALYSSA TOCHKA, ESQ. and LUKE GOLDWORM, ESQ., special
Assistant United States Attorneys, Office of the United States
Attorney, 1 Courthouse Way, Room 9200, Boston, Massachusetts,
02210, for the Plaintiff.

KEITH S. HALPERN, ESQ., 572 Washington Street, Suite 19,
Wellesley, Massachusetts, 02480, for the Defendant.

ALSO PRESENT: James Pace, U.S. Probation Office.
Jiraporn Huynh, Thai Interpreter.

United States District Court
1 Courthouse Way
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
January 20, 2022, 3:31 p.m.
LEE A. MARZILLI
OFFICIAL COURT REPORTER
United States District Court
1 Courthouse Way, Room 7200
Boston, MA 02210
leemarz@aol.com

Criminal No. 21-10270-MLW
03:58

04:00

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

I would conduct a waiver-of-indictment colloquy and then a

Rule 11 colloquy. If all of the answers were satisfactory, I
would accept the guilty plea; I would defer until sentencing
whether to accept the plea agreement and impose the agreed-upon
sentence, or allow the defendant an opportunity to withdraw her
plea, as required by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
11l(c) (1) (4) and (5). And then, after accepting the guilty
plea, presumably I would address the petition to revoke
supervised release and the related questions as to whether the
conditions of pretrial release should be revised.

But I have a question concerning whether I should
conduct a Rule 11 colloquy because to an unusual, possibly
unique degree, I have questions as to whether it's reasonably
likely that I'll accept the binding plea agreement if we go
through the protracted process of having the presentence report
prepared, and let me explain.

(Defendant speaking.)

THE COURT: The defendant needs to be quiet and listen
to this, okay? As the Supreme Court wrote in Freeman v. United
States, 564 U.S. 522 at 529, a decision not in pertinent part
altered by the later Supreme Court decision in Hughes, as I
understand it, in Freeman the Supreme Court wrote, "Federal
sentencing law requires the District Judge in every case to
impose a sentence sufficient but not greater than necessary to

comply with the purposes of federal sentencing in light of the


File and source

File
gov.uscourts.mad.237964.107.1.pdf
Size
84,560 bytes
SHA-256
a011b511e2a88c5b13990f571c88c6276233e943a8bde307a6e51e8cf1db28b3
Our copy
gov.uscourts.mad.237964.107.1.pdf
Original
PACER (login required)
Back to top