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
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-06-02 |
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.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
- Original
- PACER (login required)