9th Cir.
12-50220
The court of appeals vacated a district court judgment and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the district court violated the Speedy Trial Act by excluding time after the defendant gave notice that a plea agreement had been reached where the record contained no evidence that the defendant ever provided such notice. The court held further that the district court should not have allowed the government to reopen its case in chief at trial to introduce previously-undisclosed evidence that the government proffered to challenge a “surprise” defense theory which the defense in fact had plainly signaled it intended to pursue.
