Stipulation Regarding Continuance of Trial Date — United States v. Sadleir (No. 2:20-cr-00299, filed 09/10/20)

Summary

A Stipulation Regarding Request for (1) Continuance of Trial Date and (2) Findings of Excludable Time Periods Pursuant to Speedy Trial Act in United States v. William Sadleir, Document 61, Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG, filed 09/10/20, signed /s/ Alexander C.K. Wyman and dated September 8, 2020. It states the current trial date of September 22, 2020, a proposed trial date of December 15, 2020, a proposed pretrial conference of December 2, 2020, at 2:30 PM, and that this is the first request for a continuance. It states that the charges are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1014, 1344(2) and 1957, that approximately 2,600 pages of discovery have been produced, and that General Orders of March 13, 2020 suspended jury trials because of COVID-19. Page 8 carries statements dated September 10, 2020 and September 9, 2020.

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

     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 1 of 8 Page ID #:196



1    NICOLA T. HANNA
     United States Attorney
2    BRANDON D. FOX
     Assistant United States Attorney
3    Chief, Criminal Division
     ALEXANDER C.K. WYMAN (Cal. Bar No. 295339)
4    Assistant United States Attorney
     Major Frauds Section
5         1100 United States Courthouse
          312 North Spring Street
6         Los Angeles, California 90012
          Telephone: (213) 894-2435
7         Facsimile: (213) 894-6269
          E-mail:     alex.wyman@usdoj.gov
8
     DANIEL S. KAHN
9    Acting Chief, Fraud Section
     AMANDA R. VAUGHN (MD Bar, numbers not assigned)
10   Trial Attorney
     Fraud Section, Criminal Division
11   U.S. Department of Justice
          1400 New York Ave. NW
12        Washington, D.C. 20530
          Telephone: (202) 616-4530
13        Facsimile: (202) 514-0152
          E-mail:     amanda.vaughn@usdoj.gov
14
     Attorneys for Plaintiff
15   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

16                          UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17                    FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

18   UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,               No. CR 20-299-DMG

19             Plaintiff,                    STIPULATION REGARDING REQUEST FOR
                                             (1) CONTINUANCE OF TRIAL DATE AND
20                   v.                      (2) FINDINGS OF EXCLUDABLE TIME
                                             PERIODS PURSUANT TO SPEEDY TRIAL
21   WILLIAM SADLEIR,                        ACT

22             Defendant.                    CURRENT TRIAL DATE:
                                                 September 22, 2020
23                                           PROPOSED TRIAL DATE:
                                                 December 15, 2020
24                                           PROPOSED PRETRIAL CONFERENCE:
                                                 December 2, 2020, at 2:30 PM
25

26

27        Plaintiff United States of America, by and through its counsel
28   of record, the United States Attorney for the Central District of
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 2 of 8 Page ID #:197



1    California and the Fraud Section of the United States Department of

2    Justice, and defendant WILLIAM SADLEIR (“defendant”), both

3    individually and by and through his counsel of record, Deputy Federal

4    Public Defender Adam Olin, hereby stipulate as follows:

5         1.    The Indictment in this case was filed on July 17, 2020.

6    Defendant first appeared before a judicial officer of the court in

7    which the charges in this case were pending on May 22, 2020.           The

8    Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161, originally required that the

9    trial commence on or before September 25, 2020.

10        2.    On July 22, 2020, the Court set a trial date of September

11   22, 2020, and a pretrial conference on September 9, 2020.

12        3.    Defendant is released on bond pending trial.         The parties

13   estimate that the trial in this matter will last approximately four

14   to five days.

15        4.    By this stipulation, defendant moves to continue the trial

16   date to December 15, 2020, and to set a pretrial conference for

17   December 2, 2020.    This is the first request for a continuance.

18        5.    Defendant requests the continuance based upon the following

19   facts, which the parties believe demonstrate good cause to support

20   the appropriate findings under the Speedy Trial Act:

21              a.    Defendant is charged with violations of 18 U.S.C.

22   §§ 1343 (wire fraud), 1014 (false statement to a financial

23   institution), 1344(2) (bank fraud), and 1957 (transactional money

24   laundering).    The government has produced discovery to the defense,

25   including approximately 2,600 pages of written reports, bank records,

26   email correspondence, photographs, and other documents obtained

27   during the government’s investigation, as well as both video and

28   audio recordings.

                                          2
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 3 of 8 Page ID #:198



1               b.    On March 13, 2020, following the President’s

2    declaration of a national emergency in response to COVID-19, the

3    Court entered a General Order suspending jury selection and jury

4    trials scheduled to begin before April 13, 2020.         (C.D. Cal. General

5    Order No. 20-02, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order

6    Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings (Mar. 13, 2020).)            The

7    Court subsequently continued that suspension through June 1, 2020.

8    (C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-05, In Re: Coronavirus Public

9    Emergency, Further Order Concerning Jury Trials and Other Proceedings

10   (Apr. 13, 2020).)

11              c.    Also on March 13, 2020, the Court imposed health- and

12   travel-related limitations on access to Court facilities.           (C.D. Cal.

13   General Order No. 20-03, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order

14   Concerning Access to Court Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020).)           On March 19,

15   2020, by Order of the Chief Judge, the Court instituted its

16   Continuity of Operations Plan (“COOP”), closing all Central District

17   of California courthouses to the public (except for hearings on

18   criminal duty matters) and taking other emergency actions.           (C.D.

19   Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020).)           On March

20   29 and 31, recognizing COVID-19’s continued spread in the community,

21   the Court took further action: implementing video-teleconference and

22   telephonic hearings and suspending all grand-jury proceedings.            (C.D.

23   Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) and 20-044

24   (Mar. 31, 2020).)    On June 26, 2020, the Chief Judge extended Order

25   No. 20-043 for another 90 days.       (C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge

26   No. 20-080 (June 26, 2020).)

27              d.    These orders were imposed based on (1) the California

28   Governor’s declaration of a public-health emergency in response to

                                          3
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 4 of 8 Page ID #:199



1    the spread of COVID-19, as well as (2) the Centers for Disease

2    Control’s advice regarding reducing the possibility of exposure to

3    the virus and slowing the spread of the disease.         (See General Order

4    20-02, at 1.)    The Chief Judge has recognized that, during the COVID-

5    19 crisis, all gatherings should be limited to no more than 10 people

6    and elderly and other vulnerable people should avoid person-to-person

7    contact altogether.     (See Order of the Chief Judge No. 20-042, at 1-

8    2.)

9               e.     On March 19, 2020, both Los Angeles Mayor Eric

10   Garcetti and California Governor Gavin Newsom issued emergency orders

11   requiring residents to “stay home,” subject to limited exceptions.

12   (California Executive Order N-33-20 (Mar. 19, 2020); accord Safer at

13   Home, Public Order Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority ¶ 1

14   (Mar. 19, 2020).)    Subject to similarly limited exceptions, all

15   travel was prohibited.     (Safer At Home ¶ 4.)      Non-essential

16   businesses requiring in-person attendance by workers were ordered to

17   cease operations.    (Id. ¶ 2.)    In addition, all schools in the Los

18   Angeles Unified School District (“LAUSD”) were closed through the

19   summer of 2020.

20              f.     On May 13, 2020, Mayor Garcetti revised the March 19,

21   2020 Safer at Home Order, removing the May 15, 2020 end date and

22   providing no set end date.      (See Safer at Home, Public Order Under

23   City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority (updated May 13 and 27,

24   2020).)   On June 1, 2020, Mayor Garcetti issued the Safer L.A. Order,

25   encouraging residents to continue “to stay safer at home as much as

26   possible, to avoid gathering with others outside their households in

27   both indoor and outdoor settings, and to telework as much as

28   possible,” with exceptions for certain activities and types of

                                          4
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 5 of 8 Page ID #:200



1    employees.   (Safer L.A., Public Order Under City of Los Angeles

2    Emergency Authority (June 1, 2020) at 1.)         Official public health

3    guidance continues to evolve on a near daily basis.          Indeed, Mayor

4    Garcetti’s June 1, 2020 Safer L.A. Order was updated on July 13, 2020

5    to “reinstitute[] some of the restrictions [the City of Los Angeles]

6    saw in the early days of the pandemic.”          (Safer L.A., Public Order

7    Under City of Los Angeles Emergency Authority (June 1, 2020, updated

8    July 13, 2020) at 1.)     Also on July 13, 2020, LAUSD announced that

9    all LAUSD schools would remain closed through the fall of 2020.

10              g.    On May 28, 2020, the Court announced its Plan for

11   Phased Resumption of Operations (“Reopening Plan”), which has three

12   phases.   (C.D. Cal. Amended General Order No. 20-08, In Re:

13   Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Phased Reopening of

14   the Court (May 28, 2020).)      Phase 1, implemented on June 1, 2020,

15   involves the return of certain staff to the courthouses to prepare

16   for limited in-court hearings.      (Reopening Plan at 2.)      Phase 2

17   involves reopening courthouses for limited in-court hearings and was

18   implemented as of June 22, 2020.         (Id.)   Phase 3 would call for the

19   resumption of jury trials.

20              h.    On August 6, 2020, the Court issued a revised

21   reopening plan, which confirmed that a date for Phase 3 had yet to be

22   determined and stated that, “Until further notice, no jury trials

23   will be conducted in criminal cases.”         (C.D. Cal. General Order No.

24   20-09, In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency Order Concerning Phased

25   Reopening of the Court (Aug. 6, 2020).)          It remains unclear when jury

26   trials will resume and, if they do resume, what the Court’s capacity

27   will be for hearing them.

28

                                          5
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 6 of 8 Page ID #:201



1               i.     In light of the foregoing, counsel for defendant also

2    represents that additional time is necessary to confer with

3    defendant, conduct and complete an independent investigation of the

4    case, conduct and complete additional legal research including for

5    potential pretrial motions, review the discovery and potential

6    evidence in the case, and prepare for trial in the event that a

7    pretrial resolution does not occur.       Defense counsel represents that

8    failure to grant the continuance would deny him reasonable time

9    necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise

10   of due diligence.

11              j.     Defendant believes that failure to grant the

12   continuance will deny him continuity of counsel and adequate

13   representation.

14              k.     The government does not object to the continuance.

15              l.     The requested continuance is not based on congestion

16   of the Court’s calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of

17   the attorney for the government or the defense, or failure on the

18   part of the attorney for the government to obtain available

19   witnesses.

20        6.    For purposes of computing the date under the Speedy Trial

21   Act by which defendant’s trial must commence, the parties agree that

22   the time period from the date of the Court’s corresponding Order to

23   December 15, 2020, inclusive, should be excluded pursuant to 18

24   U.S.C. §§ 3161(h)(7)(A), (h)(7)(B)(i), and (h)(7)(B)(iv) because the

25   delay results from a continuance granted by the Court at defendant’s

26   request, without government objection, on the basis of the Court’s

27   finding that: (i) the ends of justice served by the continuance

28   outweigh the best interest of the public and defendant in a speedy

                                          6
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 7 of 8 Page ID #:202



1    trial; (ii) failure to grant the continuance would be likely to make

2    a continuation of the proceeding impossible, or result in a

3    miscarriage of justice; and (iii) failure to grant the continuance

4    would unreasonably deny defendant continuity of counsel and would

5    deny defense counsel the reasonable time necessary for effective

6    preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

7         7.    Nothing in this stipulation shall preclude a finding that

8    other provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time

9    periods be excluded from the period within which trial must commence.

10   Moreover, the same provisions and/or other provisions of the Speedy

11   Trial Act may in the future authorize the exclusion of additional

12   time periods from the period within which trial must commence.

13        IT IS SO STIPULATED.

14   Dated: September 8, 2020             Respectfully submitted,

15                                        NICOLA T. HANNA
                                          United States Attorney
16
                                          BRANDON D. FOX
17                                        Assistant United States Attorney
                                          Chief, Criminal Division
18
                                          DANIEL S. KAHN
19                                        Acting Chief, Fraud Section
                                          United States Department of Justice
20

21                                              /s/
                                          ALEXANDER C.K. WYMAN
22                                        Assistant United States Attorney
                                          AMANDA R. VAUGHN
23                                        Trial Attorney
                                          Fraud Section, Criminal Division
24                                        United States Department of Justice

25                                        Attorneys for Plaintiff
                                          UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
26

27

28

                                          7
     Case 2:20-cr-00299-DMG Document 61 Filed 09/10/20 Page 8 of 8 Page ID #:203



1         I am WILLIAM SADLEIR’s attorney.        I have carefully discussed

2    every part of this stipulation and the continuance of the trial date

3    with my client.    I have fully informed my client of his Speedy Trial

4    rights.   To my knowledge, my client understands those rights and

5    agrees to waive them.     I believe that my client’s decision to give up

6    the right to be brought to trial earlier than December 15, 2020 is an

7    informed and voluntary one.

8
                                                    September 10, 2020
9    ADAM OLIN                                    Date
     Deputy Federal Public Defender
10   Attorney for Defendant
     WILLIAM SADLEIR
11

12        I have read this stipulation and have carefully discussed it
13   with my attorney.    I understand my Speedy Trial rights.           I
14   voluntarily agree to the continuance of the trial date, and give up
15   my right to be brought to trial earlier than December 15, 2020.               I
16   understand that I will be ordered to appear in Courtroom 8C of the
17   Federal Courthouse, 350 W. 1st Street, Los Angeles, California on
18   December 2, 2020, at 2:30 PM, for a pretrial conference, and on
19   December 15, 2020, at 8:30 AM, for trial.
20
                                                    September 9, 2020
21   WILLIAM SADLEIR                              Date
     Defendant
22

23

24

25

26

27

28

                                          8


File and source

File

61.pdf

Size

130,348 bytes

SHA-256

67e1299f2eed404a8ec019d78172f3df379bae856219a7bbc10e4beb6f26dcaa

Our copy

61.pdf

Original

archive.org