DOCSLIB.ORG

IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the MIDDLE DISTRICT of GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION MARK BRAMLETT, * Petitioner, * CASE

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
IN the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the MIDDLE DISTRICT of GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION MARK BRAMLETT, * Petitioner, * CASE Case 4:06-cr-00004-GMF Document 104 Filed 05/18/09 Page 1 of 15 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA COLUMBUS DIVISION MARK BRAMLETT, * Petitioner, * CASE NO. 4:07-CV-90025 CDL vs. * 28 U.S.C. § 2255 CASE NO. 4:06-CR-04 CDL UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, * Respondent. * REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Indictment returned in this court on February 22, 2006, charged Petitioner Bramlett with Possession of More Than 50 Grams of Methamphetamine With Intent to Distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C.§ 841(a) and, as Count II, Possession of a Firearm by a Convicted Felon in violation of 18 U.S.C.§ 922(g) and (f). (Doc. 1). Bramlett was arraigned on March 27, 2006. (Doc. 20). He filed a Motion To Suppress on May 18, 2006. (Doc. 27). On August 3, 2006, Petitioner Bramlett filed his Amended Motion To Suppress. (Doc. 41). His Motion, as amended, was denied on August 14, 2006, and, at the same time, his case was set for trial to begin on September 5, 2006. (Doc. 43). He was tried and found guilty on Count I on September 11, 2006, and the Government dismissed Count II. (Doc. 50). Bramlett was sentenced on January 24, 2007, to a term of imprisonment of 121 months. (Doc. 64). None of these facts are disputed by either party. Petitioner Bramlett timely appealed his conviction and sentence, which was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 29, 2007. (Doc. 78). The Circuit Court concluded in its decision that the district court properly denied Bramlett’s motion to suppress. Id. On December 5, 2007, and on March 27, 2008, Petitioner Bramlett filed petitions for the redress of grievances in the district court, which the parties concede are correctly treated as a timely Motion Case 4:06-cr-00004-GMF Document 104 Filed 05/18/09 Page 2 of 15 To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Doc. 78, 83). New counsel was appointed to represent Petitioner Bramlett in his § 2255 motion and hearing. (Doc. 84). Hearing counsel amended Petitioner’s Motion to plead ineffective assistance of trial, sentencing, and appellate counsel. (Doc. 94). Discussion of Petitioner’s Claims 1. As his PART ONE to his Motion To Vacate, Set Aside, or Correct Sentence, as contained in his Document 79 at 2-6, Bramlett alleges a violation of the Speedy Trial Act and includes a Trial Calendar calculation showing a total of 162 days from his arraignment date until the inception date of his trial, excepting therefrom 13 days from the filing of his Motion To Suppress (Doc. 27) on May 18, 2006, until the Government filed its Response thereto on June 1, 2006 (Doc. 32). Bramlett concludes, without any statement of authority, that, “[T]hose 13 days are excludable.” Id. at 3. The court must agree that those 13 days are indeed excludable under 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(1), which provides: The following periods of delay shall be excluded ... in computing the time within which the trial of (an indicted offense) must commence: (D) delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion. However, the statute does not make the date of response by the Government the end time for the excludable event. Bramlett cites, as his authority on this issue, United States v. Foster, 836 F.2d 856, 859 (5th Circuit, 1988) , quoting, “The Supreme Court has made clear that when a motion is presented to the trial court, the court has 30 days to enter its ruling. 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(h)(1)(F),(J). Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 106 S.Ct. 1871 (1986).”. (Doc. 79 at 5). Petitioner 2 Case 4:06-cr-00004-GMF Document 104 Filed 05/18/09 Page 3 of 15 Bramlett has placed undue limitation on the Henderson ruling. In its opinion, the Court stated: The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C.§ 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. II), as amended in 1979 and in 1984, commands that a defendant be tried within 70 days of the latest of either the filing of an indictment or information, or the first appearance before a judge or magistrate. Section 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes from this time “delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or the prompt disposition of, such motion.” Henderson, 476 U.S. at 322. The Court held that, “Congress intended subsection (F) to exclude from the Speedy Trial Act’s 70-day limitation all time between the filing of a motion and the conclusion of the hearing on that motion, whether or not a delay in holding that hearing is ‘reasonably necessary.’ ” Id. at 330. Citing Henderson, 476 U.S. at 327-28, and United States v. Davenport, 935 F.2d 1223, 1228 (11th Cir. 1991), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit explained in United States v. Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2003), the interactions of the various provisions of the Speedy Trial Act, stating as follows: For motions that require hearings, § 3161(h)(1)(F) excludes all time between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing at which it is addressed. This entire period is excluded from the speedy trial clock and is not subject to review regarding its reasonableness. Once the hearing is concluded, the motion is treated exactly like a motion for which no hearing is required. If the court has all materials necessary to rule on the motion, the court is deemed to have taken the motion under advisement immediately following the hearing and § 3161(h)(1)(J) permits no more than thirty additional days to be excluded. Id. at 1292. Petitioner Bramlett’s Motion To Suppress filed on May 18, 2006, was amended on August 3, 2006, after the Government had filed a Response, but before the court had held a hearing on the motion. (Doc. 41). Apparently, Bramlett felt that the court did not have all necessary 3 Case 4:06-cr-00004-GMF Document 104 Filed 05/18/09 Page 4 of 15 materials before it, inasmuch as he filed his Amended Motion To Suppress on August 3, 2006. The court heard and denied Petitioner’s Motion To Suppress and his Amended Motion To Suppress on August 14, 2006, and Petitioner’s trial began on September 5, 2006, with jury voir dire. (Doc. 43). Pursuant to the holding of United States v. Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2003), and its reliance upon Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 106 S.Ct. 1871 (1986), all of the time beginning with the date of Petitioner’s filing of his Motion To Suppress on May 18, 2006, and including the court’s ruling thereon on August 14, 2006, is time excludable from the 70-day period allowed for trial in the Speedy Trial Act. See United States v. Twitty, 107 F.3d 1482, 1487-88 (11th Cir. 1997) (the excludable period includes the day the motion was filed and the day it was decided). The 70-day Speedy Trial period began on March 28, 2006, the day after Petitioner Bramlett was arraigned. This date is not contested, inasmuch as Petitioner counts only the elapse of four (4) days in March 2006. (Doc. 79 at 2). The running of the 70-day period was tolled with the filing of Petitioner’s Motion To Suppress on May 18, 2006, fifty-two (52) days having elapsed at that time. As noted above, the court denied Petitioner’s Motion To Suppress and his Amended Motion To Suppress on August 14, 2006. Pursuant to the authority cited above, this entire period of time was excludable from the 70-day period, of which 18 days remained after August 14, 2006. Petitioner’s trial was started on September 5, 2006, the fourth day after the expiration of the 70-day period provided in the Speedy Trial Act, with all excludable time fully calculated. It must also be noted that Saturday, September 2nd, Sunday, September 3rd, and Monday, September 4, 2006, were the National Labor Day holiday weekend. In United States v. Dunn, 345 F.3d 1285, 1296 (11th Cir. 2003), the Court ruled: The Supreme Court has identified four basic factors that courts should 4 Case 4:06-cr-00004-GMF Document 104 Filed 05/18/09 Page 5 of 15 consider in determining whether a defendant has been deprived of his constitutional right to a speedy trial: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the defendant’s assertion of the right; and (4) the prejudice to the defendant. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-32, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192-93 (1972). As we have noted, the Court explained in Barker that “[t]he first factor serves a triggering function; unless some ‘presumptively prejudicial’ period of delay occurred, we need not conduct the remainder of the analysis.” United States v. Register, 182 F.3d 820, 827 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing Barker, 407 U.S. at 530, 92 S.Ct. At 2192). ... A delay is considered presumptively prejudicial as it approaches one year. See Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52 & n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 2628, 2690-91 & n. 1 (1992). ... [W]e are mindful that “ ‘[i]n this circuit, a defendant generally must show actual prejudice unless the first three factors ..
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The “Radical” Notion of the Presumption of Innocence
    EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY THE “RADICAL” MAY 2020 Tracey Meares, NOTION OF THE Justice Collaboratory, Yale University Arthur Rizer, PRESUMPTION R Street Institute OF INNOCENCE The Square One Project aims to incubate new thinking on our response to crime, promote more effective strategies, and contribute to a new narrative of justice in America. Learn more about the Square One Project at squareonejustice.org The Executive Session was created with support from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation as part of the Safety and Justice Challenge, which seeks to reduce over-incarceration by changing the way America thinks about and uses jails. 04 08 14 INTRODUCTION THE CURRENT STATE OF WHY DOES THE PRETRIAL DETENTION PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE MATTER? 18 24 29 THE IMPACT OF WHEN IS PRETRIAL WHERE DO WE GO FROM PRETRIAL DETENTION DETENTION HERE? ALTERNATIVES APPROPRIATE? TO AND SAFEGUARDS AROUND PRETRIAL DETENTION 33 35 37 CONCLUSION ENDNOTES REFERENCES 41 41 42 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AUTHOR NOTE MEMBERS OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 04 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE “It was the smell of [] death, it was the death of a person’s hope, it was the death of a person’s ability to live the American dream.” That is how Dr. Nneka Jones Tapia described the Cook County Jail where she served as the institution’s warden (from May 2015 to March 2018). This is where we must begin. EXECUTIVE SESSION ON THE FUTURE OF JUSTICE POLICY 05 THE ‘RADICAL’ NOTION OF THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE Any discussion of pretrial detention must Let’s not forget that Kalief Browder spent acknowledge that we subject citizens— three years of his life in Rikers, held on presumed innocent of the crimes with probable cause that he had stolen a backpack which they are charged—to something containing money, a credit card, and an iPod that resembles death.
    [Show full text]
  • Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker V
    Case Western Reserve Law Review Volume 67 Issue 1 Article 12 2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test Seth Osnowitz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Seth Osnowitz, Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Baker v. Wingo Test, 67 Case W. Rsrv. L. Rev. 273 (2016) Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol67/iss1/12 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Journals at Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Case Western Reserve Law Review by an authorized administrator of Case Western Reserve University School of Law Scholarly Commons. Case Western Reserve Law Review·Volume 67·Issue 1·2016 Demanding a Speedy Trial: Re-Evaluating the Assertion Factor in the Barker v. Wingo Test Contents Introduction .................................................................................. 273 I. Background and Policy of Sixth Amendment Right to Speedy Trial .......................................................................... 275 A. History of Speedy Trial Jurisprudence ............................................ 276 B. Policy Considerations and the “Demand-Waiver Rule”..................... 279 II. The Barker Test and Defendants’ Assertion of the Right to a Speedy Trial .................................................................. 282 A. Rejection of the
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trial
    Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume 68 Article 7 Issue 4 December Winter 1977 Speedy Trial Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal Justice Commons Recommended Citation Speedy Trial, 68 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 543 (1977) This Criminal Law is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRIMINOLOGY Vol. 68, No. 4 Copyright @ 1977 by Northwestern University School of Law Printed in U.S.A. SPEEDY TRIAL United States v. Lovasco, 97 S. Ct. 2044 (1977). The Supreme Court of the United States has v. Marion,7 the Supreme Court focused on the recognized that the right to a speedy trial "is language of the sixth amendment8 and con- one of the most basic rights preserved by our cluded that the sixth amendment speedy trial Constitution."' The right, as encompassed by provision does not apply until an individual the sixth amendment to the United States Con- becomes an accused, that is either through stitution,2 can be traced to the Magna Carta of arrest or indictment. The Court also stated 1215,3 which states, "we will sell to no man, we that Rule 48(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal will not deny or defer to any man either justice Procedure9 is limited in application to post- or right.
    [Show full text]
  • Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act
    Bail Reform and Speedy Trial Act • Substantial change to existing law that impacts pretrial incarceration decisions and the manner in which certain cases will be processed through the Court system. – Constitutional Amendment allowing Defendant’s to be held without bail (passed by referendum in 2014) – Statutory changes impacting the manner in which pretrial incarceration decisions are made, and how a criminal case is processed for incarcerated offenders • These changes have already been passed by the Legislature and signed into law by the Governor. The effective date of the law, statewide, is January 1, 2017. • We are a pilot county. (Other pilot programs in Morris, Passaic, and Camden). Anticipated effective date of changes for Sussex County is May of 2016. Current Processing of a Criminal Case ARREST/CHARGE SUMMONS WARRANT Central Judicial 1st Appearance/Bail AP not Processing Review (within 72 AP is present Hours) present Plea Hearing Case Resolved Early Case Not Resolved Grand Jury Disposition Presentation Conference Sentencing Arraignment Conference Status Conference Pre-Trial Conference Trial Aspects of Existing System That Will Change • Under the current system, the SCPO is not required, and does not, have an AP present at CJP Court. − CJP Court currently sits 1 day per week and is in session for about 4 hours • Under the current system, for defendants remanded to the jail on a warrant, no weekend appearance is necessary. − This is so because the first appearance/bail review does not need to take place for 72 hours. − Therefore, for a defendant arrested on a Friday, we can legally wait until Monday for the first appearance/bail review Aspects of Existing System That Will Change (Continued) • Under the current system, there are no lengthy testimonial hearings prior to the EDC conference.
    [Show full text]
  • Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of North Carolina School of Law NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 46 | Number 2 Article 7 2-1-1968 Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi William S. Geimer Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation William S. Geimer, Constitutional Law -- Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi, 46 N.C. L. Rev. 387 (1968). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol46/iss2/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized editor of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 19681 RIGHT TO SPEEDY TRIAL allow the court to continue the appointment if it determined counsel was required.50 STEPHEN E. CULBRETHr Constitutional Law-Effect of the Right to Speedy Trial on Nolle Prosequi In Klopfer v. North Carolina,'theUnited States Supreme Court held that the sixth amendment guarantee of the right to speedy trial is a basic right protected by the Constitution and is therefore incorporated into the due process clause and made obligatory upon the states under the fourteenth amendment.2 Implicit in the de- cision is the proposition that the speedy trial guarantee is to be en- forced against the states according to the federal standard.3 In Klopfer, a violation of the sixth amendment was found in the use of the North Carolina procedural device of "nolle prosequi with leave." Its objectionable characteristic is the power given the state solicitor to suspend indefinitely action on a case, after an indictment has been filed, and notwithstanding defendant's timely demand for trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: the "Window of Recapture"
    Florida State University Law Review Volume 13 Issue 1 Article 2 Spring 1985 Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture" John F. Yetter Florida State University College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Recommended Citation John F. Yetter, Florida's New Speedy Trial Rule: The "Window of Recapture", 13 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 9 (1985) . https://ir.law.fsu.edu/lr/vol13/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Florida State University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FLORIDA'S NEW SPEEDY TRIAL RULE: THE "WINDOW OF RECAPTURE" JOHN F. YETTER* The Florida Supreme Court amended the criminal speedy trial rule, Rule 3.191, Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, effective January 1, 1985.1 Under the previous rule, an accused was abso- lutely discharged from prosecution if the time provisions were vio- * Professor of Criminal Law and Associate Dean, Florida State University. Chairman, Criminal Procedure Rules Committee of the Florida Bar. Lehigh University, B.A., B.S., 1963; Duquesne University, J.D., 1967; Yale University, LLM., 1968. 1. Florida Bar Re: Amendment to Rules-Criminal Procedure, 462 So. 2d 386 (Fla. 1984). Neither the amendment, nor the commentary to it, contains any provision relating to the transitional period. The state may contend that the amendment permits recapture of defendants in any case where the underlying speedy trial time had not expired as of January 1, 1985.
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right Stephen F
    Fordham Urban Law Journal Volume 4 4 Article 6 Number 2 1976 Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right Stephen F. Chepiga Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Stephen F. Chepiga, Speedy Trials: Recent Developments Concerning a Vital Right, 4 Fordham Urb. L.J. 351 (1976). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ulj/vol4/iss2/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Urban Law Journal by an authorized editor of FLASH: The orF dham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NOTES SPEEDY TRIALS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONCERNING A VITAL RIGHT I. Introduction Historically, Anglo-American law has jealously guarded the right of an accused to have a speedy trial in a criminal prosecution., Englishmen formally claimed the right in the Magna Charta of 1215.2 In the United States, it is extended to defendants in. federal cases by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.' Through incor- poration into the fourteenth amendment, the protection is likewise available to defendants in state prosecutions.' Notwithstanding constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions, the concept of a speedy trial in the United States has always been ambiguous. Until recent times it has been considered a matter that could only be defined in the context of the special circumstances of individual cases.5 The right was said to be "consis- tent with delays"; 6 thus there has been less than an absolute guar- antee that a defendant would be tried within a short time of his arrest or indictment.
    [Show full text]
  • Local Ref.Pdf
    Table of Contents (Nominal) CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1. Introduction 1-16 Chapter 2. Data Analysis 17-89 Chapter 3: Major findings 90-117 Chapter 4: How long the Wheels of Justice shall hold 118-144 on for appearance of the accused? Chapter 5: Whose case is it in any way? Police, 145-166 Prosecution or the Victim Chapter 6 Can there be a time frame for completing 167-175 Investigation? Chapter 7 Recommendations 176-182 i Table of Contents (Detailed) Chapter Page No. CONTENTS No. List of Abbreviations vii List of Cases viii - x List of Tables xi Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION 1-16 A. What amounts to delay? 7-13 B. Objectives of the Study 14 C. Limitations of the Study 14 D. Methodology 14-16 Chapter 2 DATA ANALYSIS 17-89 A. Stage I: Analysis of Form 1 17-29 B. State II: Analysis of Form 2, 3 and 4 30-40 C. Stage III: Sample Study of life cycle of 41-49 pending and disposed of cases D. Stage IV: Questionnaires 50-89 Chapter 3 MAJOR FINDINGS 90-117 A. Non-appearance of the accused at 90-95 different stages of Trial B. Fall out of absconding on criminal 95-98 ii adjudication C. Procedural and penal safeguards to 98-102 check and deal with non-appearance of the accused D. How far Sec.299 Cr.P.C been 102-107 effective? E. Avoidable delays at the stage of 107-111 commitment of cases to the court of sessions F. Delay at the stage of Prosecution 111-116 Evidence G.
    [Show full text]
  • Amicus Brief
    No. 16-1495 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ___________ CITY OF HAYS, KANSAS, Petitioner, v. MATTHEW JACK DWIGHT VOGT, Respondent. ___________ On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ___________ BRIEF OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE SCHOLARS AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT ___________ ELIZABETH B. WYDRA BRIANNE J. GOROD* ASHWIN P. PHATAK** CONSTITUTIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY CENTER 1200 18th Street NW, Ste 501 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 296-6889 [email protected] Counsel for Amici Curiae * Counsel of Record December 20, 2017 **Not admitted in D.C.; supervised by principals of the firm TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................. ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .......................... 1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............................. 2 ARGUMENT ......................................................... 4 I. THE TEXT, STRUCTURE, AND DRAFT- ING HISTORY OF THE CONSTITUTION DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SELF-IN- CRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN COERCED, INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS ARE INTRODUCED AT PRE-TRIAL PROBABLE CAUSE HEAR- INGS ............................................................. 4 II. THE HISTORICAL PRACTICE AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDING CONFIRMS THAT THE SELF-INCRIMINATION CLAUSE IS VIOLATED WHEN CO- ERCED, INCRIMINATING STATE- MENTS ARE INTRODUCED AT PRE- TRIAL PROBABLE CAUSE HEARINGS ... 21 CONCLUSION .................................................... 26 (i) ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) Cases Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (1977) ................................... 7 Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1968) ................................... 20 Blyew v. United States, 80 U.S. (13 Wall.) 581 (1871) .................... 5 Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591 (1896) ................................... 20 Browning-Ferris Indus. of Vermont, Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257 (1989) ................................... 14 Chavez v. Martinez, 538 U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Rule 1. Scope; Authority of the Chief Judge; Definitions (A) SCOPE
    Rule 1. Scope; Authority of the Chief Judge; Definitions (a) SCOPE. These rules govern the procedure in all criminal proceedings in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (b) AUTHORITY OF THE CHIEF JUDGE. The Chief Judge by order may arrange and divide the business of the Criminal Division as may be necessary for the sound administration of justice, except that branches within the Division may be created or eliminated only by court rule. (c) TAX DIVISION. All proceedings brought by the District of Columbia for the imposition of criminal penalties under the provisions of the statutes relating to taxes levied by or in behalf of the District of Columbia shall be conducted in the Tax Division. (d) DEFINITIONS. The following definitions apply to these rules: (1) “Attorney for the government” means: (A) the Attorney General of the United States or an authorized assistant; (B) a United States Attorney or an authorized assistant; (C) the Attorney General for the District of Columbia or an authorized assistant; and (D) any other attorney authorized by law to conduct proceedings under these rules as a prosecutor. (2) “Civil action” refers to a civil action in the Superior Court. (3) “Court” means a judge or magistrate judge performing functions authorized by law, except where the term is used to mean the court as an institution. (4) “District Court” means all United States District Courts. (5) “Judge” means the Chief Judge, an Associate Judge, or a Senior Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. (6) “Law enforcement officer” or “investigative officer” means an officer or member of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia or of any other police force operating in the District of Columbia, or an investigative officer or agent of the United States or the District of Columbia.
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trial and Related Issues
    Chapter 7 Speedy Trial and Related Issues 7.1 Statutory Protections against Delayed Prosecution 7-2 A. Statute of Limitations for Misdemeanors B. Compliance with Statute of Limitations C. Waiver of Statute of Limitations D. Statutory Limitations on Jurisdiction of Juvenile Court E. Rights of Prisoners F. Pretrial Release G. Other Statutory Deadlines 7.2 Pre-Accusation Delay 7-13 A. Constitutional Basis of Right B. Proving Prejudice C. Reason for Delay D. Case Summaries on Pre-Accusation Delay E. Investigating Pre-Accusation Delay F. Motions to Dismiss 7.3 Post-Accusation Delay 7-17 A. Constitutional Basis of Right B. Test for Speedy Trial Violation C. When Right Attaches D. Case Summaries on Post-Accusation Delay E. Remedy for Speedy Trial Violation F. Motions for Speedy Trial 7.4 Prosecutor’s Calendaring Authority 7-29 A. Generally B. Simeon v. Hardin C. Calendaring Statute D. Other Limits E. District Court Proceedings ___________________________________________________________ This chapter covers four related issues concerning trial delay: • statutory protections against delayed prosecution of a criminal defendant; • constitutional protections against prolonged delay between the commission of the offense and the defendant’s arrest or indictment on the charge; 7-1 Ch. 7: Speedy Trial and Related Issues (Mar. 2019) 7-2 • constitutional protections against prolonged delay after arrest or indictment; and • limits on prosecutors’ use of their calendaring authority. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as well as analogous provisions in North Carolina’s Constitution (article I, sections 18 and 19), are the primary sources of law guaranteeing a defendant charged with a felony the right to a timely prosecution and a speedy trial.
    [Show full text]
  • Speedy Trial Plan
    SPEEDY TRIAL PLAN of the UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Local Criminal Rule 45.1 PLAN FOR THE DISPOSITION OF CRIMINAL CASES ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THE SPEEDY TRIAL ACT OF 1974 Pursuant to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 3165(c), the Plan for the Disposition of Criminal cases was approved by the Court on May 5, 1980, by the Judicial Counsel on May 13, 1980, and became effective July 1, 1980. This copy of the plan has been modified to incorporate the Court's practices as of October 30, 2002. Angela D. Caesar, Clerk UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SPEEDY TRIAL PLAN TABLE OF SECTIONS A. Applicability and General Policy 1. Applicability (a) Other Rules (b) Offenses (c) Persons 2. Priorities in Scheduling Criminal Cases B. Time Limits and Related Provisions 3. Proceedings Before the Magistrate Judges (a) Time Limits Applicable to Preliminary Examinations (b) Bail Reports and Hearings 4. Time Within Which an Indictment or Information Must be Filed (a) Time Limits (b) Superseding Charges (c) Measurement of Time Periods (d) Related Procedures (e) Pre-Indictment Rulings on Excludable Time and Continuances 5. Time Within Which Arraignments Shall be Held (a) Time Limits (b) Measurement of Time Periods (c) Timing the Return of Indictments (d) Notification of Counsel and the Defendant (e) Transfer of Cases for Arraignment (f) Related Procedures 6. Time Within Which Pretrial Motions Must be Filed 1 7. Status Conference (a) Initial Conference (b) Further Hearings 8. Time Within Which Trial Must Commence (a) Time Limits (1) Time Limit Applicable to District Court (2) Time Limit Applicable to Trials Before Magistrates Judges (b) Retrial and Trial After Reinstatement of an Indictment or Information (c) Withdrawal of Plea (d) Superseding Charges (e) Measurement of Time Periods (f) Meeting the Scheduled Trial Date (1) In General (2) Transfer of Cases for Trial (g) Pretrial Rulings on Excludable Time and Continuances 9.
    [Show full text]