Circuit split · criminal procedure
Whether time granted to a defendant to prepare pretrial motions is automatically excludable from the Speedy Trial Act's 70-day clock under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)
1 federal appellate case on this question, each acknowledging the disagreement in its own words.
- United States v. Bloate534 F3D 893
Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals · July 25, 2008
“This court has acknowledged the circuit split, but not decided the issue.” — Acknowledges a circuit split
Empirical analysis of this case →
The provision at issue
18 U.S.C. § 3161 — Time limits and exclusions
“(a) In any case involving a defendant charged with an offense, the appropriate judicial officer, at the earliest practicable time, shall, after consultation with the counsel for the defendant and the attorney for the Government, set the case for trial on a day certain, or list it for trial on a weekly or other short-term trial calendar at a place within the judicial district, so as to assure a speedy trial. (b) Any information or indictment charging an individual with the commission of an offense shall be filed within thirty days from the date …”Read the full section →
The other side of the split
Decisions the acknowledging court(s) named as the opposing or joined side, quoted in the acknowledging opinion's own words.
- Declined to follow · 4th Cir.United States v. Jarrell147 F.3d 315
“The Fourth Circuit reasons that “Congress’ decision not to include pretrial motion preparation time within the scope of the delay excluda-ble under § 3161(h)(1)(F) strongly indicates that it did not intend to exclude such time under § 3161(h)(1) at all.” Jarrell, 147 F.3d at 317 ; see also Moran, 998 F.2d at 1370-71 (“The statute expressly excludes only the period ‘from the filing of the [pretrial] motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.’ The statute does not provide that a period allowed by the district court for preparation of pretrial mo…” — United States v. Bloate, acknowledging the split
- Declined to follow · 6th Cir.United States v. Moran998 F.2d 1368
“The Fourth Circuit reasons that “Congress’ decision not to include pretrial motion preparation time within the scope of the delay excluda-ble under § 3161(h)(1)(F) strongly indicates that it did not intend to exclude such time under § 3161(h)(1) at all.” Jarrell, 147 F.3d at 317 ; see also Moran, 998 F.2d at 1370-71 (“The statute expressly excludes only the period ‘from the filing of the [pretrial] motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion.’ The statute does not provide that a period allowed by the district court for preparation of pretrial mo…” — United States v. Bloate, acknowledging the split
- Joined byWilson835 F.2d 1444
“See Wilson, 835 F.2d at 1444 ; see also Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d at 913-14 (“The grant allows the district court to dispose of the difficult question of whether the defendant’s interests are better served by an uninterrupted march to trial or by a pause in proceedings at the defendant’s request for the preparation of pretrial motions.”).” — United States v. Bloate, acknowledging the split
- Joined byMobile Materials, Inc.871 F.2d 913
“See Wilson, 835 F.2d at 1444 ; see also Mobile Materials, Inc., 871 F.2d at 913-14 (“The grant allows the district court to dispose of the difficult question of whether the defendant’s interests are better served by an uninterrupted march to trial or by a pause in proceedings at the defendant’s request for the preparation of pretrial motions.”).” — United States v. Bloate, acknowledging the split
- Joined byMejia82 F.3d 1036
- Discussed · 8th Cir.United States v. Suarez-Perez484 F.3d 537
What the split turns on
Cases are grouped by the legal question they announce a split on, classified from the court's own acknowledgment sentence. Verified acknowledgments only. Counter-side decisions are extracted from the acknowledging opinions' own text and linked only when the citation resolves in this corpus. See all circuit splits.