By Linhchi Nguyen and Nickolas Kwok
SACRAMENTO – Private Defense Attorney Kelly Babineau last week accused the Sacramento District Attorney’s Office of “abusing” the court’s emergency orders by extending a trial without good cause, and filed a motion to dismiss the case since the defendant’s rights to a speedy trial were denied.
At Sacramento County Superior Court, Deputy District Attorney, Dinah Meilke, filed for a 1382 extension to move the date of defendant Randy Robello’s trial back by up to 60 days because the victim and key witnesses are quarantined in Hawaii.
In looking at Penal Code 1382, it states that a criminal defendant must be brought to court within 30 days for a misdemeanor or 60 days for a felony, which is the case for Robello who is charged for conducting sexual acts with a minor.
But, because of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Gov. Newsom and the Chief Justice of the California Supreme Court have issued numerous orders that allowed the pandemic to constitute “good cause” to 
continue trials within an extended period of time.
In court, Babineau argued that this emergency order was designed to accommodate the courts when “they can’t provide courtrooms or because there are issues that make it unsafe to have a trial.”
However, according to Babineau, this has not been the case for Sacramento County, which she argued “is not designed for the DA to just use without establishing good cause.”
Babineau also accused Meilke of abusing the emergency orders and violating the defendant’s due process and speedy trial rights since “(Meilke) has failed to allege good cause…and I don’t believe that she has her complaining witnesses available or cooperating.”
Meilke defended the extension with the justification that key witnesses and the victim are unable to appear in court as they must undergo a mandatory 14-day quarantine upon returning from Hawaii.
She further denied that invoking the 1382 extension requires any additional good cause, stating, “The chief justice and the presiding judge have found good cause in creating that extension. At no point in those emergency orders is there an amendment that dictates that additional good cause needs to be stated.”
Babineau insisted that the witnesses would be able to show up to court if they are tested for COVID and the results are negative. “So there’s no reason why we can’t establish a set date and accommodate them and bring them over. Or if they’re not cooperating, then the case can be dismissed,” she said.
After hearing both sides, Judge Patrick Marlette finally intervened. He first agreed with Mielke that nowhere in the emergency order does it explicitly say that there is a necessity to show good cause for the extension, as it is required by many other statutes.
In addition, he said California is known to be “lax” in requiring adherence to a statute for continuance, adding, “There’s an expectation that the culture allows for continuance on very slim showings and without fact findings.”
He then overruled Babineau’s objection and allowed Mielke to have good cause because of her witnesses’ situation. He did order the DDA to determine the requirements that are imposed by the government on the movement of witnesses and to advise Babineau of those requirements and how they can be accommodated in setting a date.
Mielke requested the court trail the case to Jan. 4, which would be within time of the 1382 extension. She also asked to meet with Babineau once again so they could resolve any further issues.
The trial is now scheduled for Jan. 4, 2021 in Dept. 9 while the trial readiness conference will be on Dec. 30.
Linhchi Nguyen is a fourth year at UC Davis, double majoring in Political Science and English. She currently lives in Sacramento, California.
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
