Court filing
Criminal Complaint — United States v. Carter (Dkt. 13, E.D. Mich. No. 2:22-mj-30125)
Filed April 5, 2022 in Carter; one of 20 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2022-04-05 |
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
No. 22-mj-30125
-vs-
Java Dominique Carter,
Defendant.
/
STIPULAION TO ADJOURN PRELIMINARY HEARING AND FOR
DETERMINATION OF EXCLUDABLE DELAY UNDER
THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND SUPPORTING BRIEF
The United States of America, by and through its undersigned attorneys, and
defendant Java Carter, through his attorney, move for an adjournment of the
preliminary hearing to June 6, 2022 and an ends-of-justice continuance under the
Speedy Trial Act. In support, the parties state as follows:
1.
Defendant was arrested on the criminal complaint in this case on
March 15, 2022 , and he made his initial appearance on the criminal complaint on
March 16, 2022. Defendant was released on a $10,000 unsecured bond. The
preliminary hearing is currently scheduled to take place on April 5, 2022
2.
The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea
negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the need for
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.31 Filed 04/05/22 Page 1 of 7
- 2 -
this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing. A preindictment plea agreement will
also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted by indictment and thus
eliminate the need for the government to seek an indictment and consume grand
jury resources. In addition, a preindictment plea agreement will also eliminate the
need for a trial.
3.
A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the
government’s case against defendant. This assessment requires that defense
counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the information
provided and/or to be provided by the government and then confer with defendant.
4.
In light of the above, the parties submit there is good cause to adjourn the
preliminary hearing. Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and
the adjournment sought is fairly limited. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 5.1(d) (“With the
defendant’s consent and upon a showing of good cause – taking into account the
public interest in the prompt disposition of criminal cases – a magistrate judge may
extend the time limits in Rule 5.1(c) one or more times.”).
5.
In addition, in light of the above, the parties submit that the ends of justice
served by a continuance of the 30-day arrest-to-indictment period under the Speedy
Trial Act will outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy
indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) (“The following periods of delay shall be
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.32 Filed 04/05/22 Page 2 of 7
- 3 -
excluded in computing the time within which an information or an indictment must
be filed: . . . (7) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any
judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel, or at the
request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance
on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action
outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy
[indictment].”). Such a continuance would allow the parties to continue their
preindictment plea negotiations without strict time constraints and pursue an
expeditious and fair resolution of the government’s prosecution of defendant. It
would also likely result in the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources
by eliminating the need for a preliminary hearing and in the conservation of grand
jury and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for defendant to be
prosecuted by way of a grand jury indictment. And it would also likely result in
the conservation of judicial and prosecutorial resources by eliminating the need for
a trial.
6.
Accordingly, the parties request that this Court find there is good cause to
adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case and order that the preliminary hearing
be adjourned until June 6, 2022 The parties also request that this Court find, based
on the information and explanation set forth above, that the ends of justice served
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.33 Filed 04/05/22 Page 3 of 7
- 4 -
by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial Act arrest-to-indictment period will
outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy
indictment. The parties request that this ends-of-justice continuance begin on the
date of this motion and continue through June 6, 2022 and that that period be
deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).
Respectfully submitted,
Dawn N. Ison
United States Attorney
s/ Mark Chasteen s/ Vincent Haisha (with consent)
Mark Chasteen
Assistant United States Attorney
211 W. Fort Street, Suite 2001
Detroit, MI 48226
(313) 226-9555
mark.chasteen@usdoj.gov
Vincent Haisha
Attorney for Java Carter
155 W. Congress Street, Ste. 603
Detroit, MI 48226
(248) 547-1032
vhaisha@floodlaw.com
Dated: April 5, 2022
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.34 Filed 04/05/22 Page 4 of 7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
United States of America,
Plaintiff,
No. 22-mj-30125
-vs-
Java Dominique Carter,
Defendant.
/
ORDER
This matter coming before the Court on the parties Stipulation to Adjourn
Preliminary Hearing and for Determination of Excludable Delay under the Speedy
Trial Act, and, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the motion is
granted.
The Court finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the
stipulation, that there is good cause to adjourn the preliminary hearing in this case
and orders that it be adjourned to June 6, 2022. See Fed.R. Crim. P. 5.1(d).
Specifically, the Court finds:
1. The government and defendant are engaged in preindictment plea
negotiations that may result in a plea agreement which will eliminate the
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.35 Filed 04/05/22 Page 5 of 7
- 2 -
need for this Court to conduct a preliminary hearing. A preindictment plea
agreement will also provide that defendant waive his right to be prosecuted
by indictment and thus eliminate the need for the government to seek an
indictment and consume grand jury resources. In addition, a preindictment
plea agreement will also eliminate the need for a trial.
2. A part of the plea negotiations involves defense counsel’s assessment of the
government’s case against defendant. This assessment requires that defense
counsel have the reasonable time necessary to adequately review the
information provided and/or to be provided by the government and then
confer with defendant.
3. Moreover, defendant has consented to this adjournment, and the
adjournment sought is fairly limited.
In addition, for the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the Court
finds, based on the information and explanation set forth in the government’s
motion, that the ends of justice served by a continuance of the 30-day Speedy Trial
Act arrest-to-indictment period will outweigh the best interest of the public and the
defendant in a speedy indictment. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7). Accordingly, the
Court grants a continuance until June 6, 2022, and orders that the period from
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.36 Filed 04/05/22 Page 6 of 7
- 3 -
April 5, 2022 to June 6, 2022 be deemed excludable delay pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §
3161(h)(7).
s/Kimberly G. Altman
Kimberly G. Altman
United States Magistrate Judge
Dated: April 5, 2022
Case 2:22-mj-30125-DUTY ECF No. 13, PageID.37 Filed 04/05/22 Page 7 of 7File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mied.360415.13.0.pdf
- Size
- 159,784 bytes
- SHA-256
- c737514cfa323058e3a97b023487e7d1a8daeb9195b746bc79ce08166468b471
- Original
- PACER (login required)