[Proposed] Order Extending and Excluding Time from the Speedy Trial Act Based on Suspension of the Grand Jury — No. 2:20-mj-01341 (Dkt. 20-1, C.D. Cal.)

Summary

A [Proposed] Order Extending and Excluding Time from the Speedy Trial Act Based on Suspension of the Grand Jury, Document 20-1, filed April 7, 2020 in United States v. Keith Lawrence Middlebrook, No. 2:20-mj-01341-DUTY, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, submitted by the United States Attorney's Office on an unopposed motion. The findings recount that a complaint and arrest warrant issued on March 25, 2020, that an indictment would typically be required by April 24, 2020 under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), and that the district suspended grand-jury proceedings on March 31, 2020 until at least May 4, 2020 because of COVID-19. The proposed terms extend the indictment clock to 60 days if no grand jury sits before April 24, 2020 and exclude time under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). It ends with the signature block of Magistrate Judge Charles F. Eick.

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-mj-01341-DUTY Document 20-1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 1 of 5 Page ID #:126



 1    NICOLA T. HANNA
      United States Attorney
 2    BRANDON D. FOX
      Assistant United States Attorney
 3    Chief, Criminal Division
      VALERIE L. MAKAREWICZ (Cal. Bar No. 229637)
 4    JAMES C. HUGHES (Cal. Bar No. 263878)
      Assistant United States Attorneys
 5    Major Frauds Section
           1100 United States Courthouse
 6         312 North Spring Street
           Los Angeles, California 90012
 7         Telephone: (213) 894-0756/2579
           Facsimile: (213) 894-6265
 8         E-mail:    valerie.makarewicz@usdoj.gov
                      james.hughes2@usdoj.gov
 9
10    Attorneys for Plaintiff
      UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
11

12                            UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

13                     FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

14    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,               No. 20-mj-1341

15               Plaintiff,                   [PROPOSED] ORDER EXTENDING AND
                                              EXCLUDING TIME FROM THE SPEEDY
16                    v.                      TRIAL ACT BASED ON SUSPENSION OF
                                              THE GRAND JURY
17    KEITH LAWRENCE MIDDLEBROOK,

18               Defendant.

19
           Having considered the United States of America’s Unopposed
20
      Motion to Extend and/or Exclude Time From the Speedy Trial Act’s
21
      Indictment and Trial Clocks Based on Suspension of the Grand Jury
22
      (“motion”), as well as the Central District of California’s General
23
      Orders Nos. 20-02 and 20-03 and Orders of the Chief Judge Nos. 20-
24
      042 and 20-043, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby FINDS AS
25
      FOLLOWS:
26

27

28

                                             1
     Case 2:20-mj-01341-DUTY Document 20-1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 2 of 5 Page ID #:127



 1         1.    This case was initiated via a complaint and arrest

 2    warrant, issued on March 25, 2020 at approximately 4:00 p.m., by

 3    Magistrate Judge John E. McDermott.         Defendant was arrested at

 4    approximately 6:00 p.m., Defendant first appeared before a judicial

 5    officer of this Court on March 26, 2020, at which time the defendant

 6    was granted pretrial bond, but to date, has not posted the bond and

 7    remains in custody.

 8         2.    The Speedy Trial Act would typically require defendant to

 9    be indicted by April 24, 2020.       18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).

10         3.    On March 31, 2020, in response to the continuing spread of

11    the COVID-19 pandemic, the Central District of California suspended

12    all grand-jury proceedings until at least May 4, 2020, “pending

13    further order of the Court.”       C.D. Cal. Order of the Chief Judge No.

14    20-044, at 3 (Mar. 31, 2020).

15         4.    The last grand-jury session in the Central District of

16    California, prior to this order, was on March 25, 2020, which

17    adjourned at approximately 4:30 p.m.

18         5.    On March 13, 2020, following the President’s declaration

19    of a national emergency, the Court suspended jury selection and jury

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

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

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

23    same day, the Court imposed health- and travel-related limitations

24    on access to Court facilities.       C.D. Cal. General Order No. 20-03,

25    In Re: Coronavirus Public Emergency, Order Concerning Access to

26    Court Facilities (Mar. 13, 2020).          On March 19, 2020, by Order of

27    the Chief Judge, the Court instituted its Continuity of Operations

28    Plan (“COOP”), closing all Central District of California

                                             2
     Case 2:20-mj-01341-DUTY Document 20-1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 3 of 5 Page ID #:128



 1    courthouses to the public (except for hearings on criminal duty

 2    matters) and taking other emergency actions.         C.D. Cal. Order of the

 3    Chief Judge No. 20-042 (Mar. 19, 2020).        On March 29 and 31,

 4    recognizing COVID-19’s continued spread in the community, the Court

 5    took further action: implementing video-teleconference and

 6    telephonic hearings and--as noted above--suspending all grand-jury

 7    proceedings until May 4, 2020.       C.D. Cal. Orders of the Chief Judge

 8    Nos. 20-043 (Mar. 29, 2020) and 20-044 (Mar, 31, 2020).           These

 9    orders were imposed based on both (1) the California governor’s

10    declaration of a public-health emergency in response to the spread

11    of COVID-19, as well as (2) the Centers for Disease Control’s advice

12    regarding reducing the possibility of exposure to the virus and

13    slowing the spread of the disease.         See General Order No. 20-02, at

14    1.

15         6.    On March 16, 2020, Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti imposed

16    temporary restrictions to stop large numbers of people from

17    gathering and staying in close proximity, including closing many

18    businesses and restaurants within the city of Los Angeles.            The

19    mayor encouraged people to “keep[] a safe distance from one

20    another,” to “slow the spread of COVID-19.”         The same day, all

21    schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District closed.

22         7.    For the reasons stated in the government’s motion, the

23    Speedy Trial Act’s speedy-indictment clock will be extended to 60

24    days if no grand jury in the Central District of California sits

25    before April 24, 2020.      18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).

26         8.    Given the grave public-health concerns discussed in

27    General Orders Nos. 20-02 and 20-03, and Orders of the Chief Judge

28    Nos. 20-043 and 20-044, as well as the facts set forth in the

                                             3
     Case 2:20-mj-01341-DUTY Document 20-1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 4 of 5 Page ID #:129



 1    government’s motion (which the Court incorporates fully by reference

 2    here), the ends of justice served by a continuance outweigh the best

 3    interest of the public and defendant in a speedy indictment and

 4    trial.     Thus, the period from March 25, 2020, to May 4, 2020, shall

 5    be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act for all purposes.           18 U.S.C.

 6    § 3161(h)(7)(A).

 7         9.     Failure to grant the continuance of the Speedy Trial Act

 8    deadlines would likely make a continuation of the proceeding

 9    impossible or result in a miscarriage of justice.          18 U.S.C.

10    § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i).

11         10.    Specifically, delay in the filing of the indictment is

12    caused because the arrest occurred at a time such that it is

13    unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within

14    the period specified in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).         18 U.S.C.

15    § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iii).

16         11.    Due to the restrictions imposed by current public-health

17    concerns, it is also unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for

18    pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the Speedy Trial

19    Act time limits.     Thus, denial of a continuance is likely to deny

20    all counsel reasonable time necessary for effective preparation,

21    taking into account the exercise of due diligence.          18 U.S.C.

22    § 3161(h)(7)(B)(iv).

23         12.    Failure to continue this case would also likely put

24    parties, witnesses, jurors, counsel, and court personnel at

25    unnecessary risk.

26         13.    The continuance is not based on congestion of the Court’s

27    calendar, lack of diligent preparation on the part of the attorneys

28

                                             4
     Case 2:20-mj-01341-DUTY Document 20-1 Filed 04/07/20 Page 5 of 5 Page ID #:130



 1    for the government or the defense, or failure on the part of the

 2    attorneys for the government to obtain available witnesses.

 3            Accordingly, the Court finds that there is good cause for a

 4    finding of excludable time pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, 18

 5    U.S.C. § 3161.

 6

 7            THEREFORE, FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN:

 8            1.   The Speedy Trial Act’s speedy-indictment clock will be

 9    extended to 60 days if no grand jury in the Central District of

10    California sits before April 24, 2020.         18 U.S.C. § 3161(b).]

11            2.   The period from March 25, 2019 to May 4, 2020, shall be

12    excluded in computing the time in which the indictment must be

13    returned or the trial must commence under the Speedy Trial Act.            See

14    18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A).

15            3.   Nothing in this Order shall preclude a finding that other

16    provisions of the Speedy Trial Act dictate that additional time

17    periods are excluded.       Moreover, the same provisions and/or other

18    provisions of the Speedy Trial Act may in the future authorize the

19    exclusion of additional time periods from the period within which

20    trial must commence.

21            IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

23
       DATE                                      HONORABLE CHARLES F. EICK
24                                               UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

25

26

27

28

                                             5


File and source

File

20-att1.pdf

Size

58,280 bytes

SHA-256

3c0d195488dd7bb760888571aa8345ce60fb605dc60c5068c02c352bda5692c3

Our copy

20-att1.pdf

Original

No public link identified.