- Posted June 13, 2011
- Tweet This | Share on Facebook
Pretrial motion tolls clock on speedy trial requirement, rules U.S. Supreme Court
By Sylvia Hsieh
Dolan Media Newswires
BOSTON, MA--The speedy trial clock stops running automatically upon the filing of a pretrial motion, even if the motion has no impact on when the trial begins, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.
The Speedy Trial Act requires that a criminal defendant who pleads not guilty gets a trial within 70 days of arraignment, but excludes periods of ''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.''
The defendant, Jason Tinklenberg, was indicted on federal gun and drug charges after police found a gun, Sudefed and other materials used to make methamphetamine in his camper.
Just before trial, which began 287 days later, he moved to dismiss based on a violation of the Act's 70-day requirement.
The trial court found that enough days fell within the Act's exclusions that only 69 days had passed. Tinklenberg was convicted and sentenced to 33 months.
On appeal, the 6th Circuit reversed his conviction, holding that the Act authorizes stopping the clock only when pretrial motions ''actually cause a delay, or the expectation of delay, of trial.''
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in February.
The justices concluded that the Act contains no requirement that the filing of a pretrial motion actually caused, or was expected to cause, delay of a trial.
''The question is whether [the delay] provision stops the Speedy Trial clock from running automatically upon the filing of a pretrial motion irrespective of whether the motion has any impact on when the trial begins. Unlike the 6th Circuit, we believe the answer to this question is yes,'' the Court said.
While it said that the statutory language alone did not resolve the question, it based its conclusion on several considerations taken together, including related subparagraphs of the Act that clarify the meaning, workability for trial courts, and the fact that in the 37 years since the Speedy Trial Act was passed, the 6th Circuit's decision stood alone.
U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. v. Tinklenberg, No. 09-1498. March 26, 2011. Lawyers USA No. 993-2639. You can link to the full text of this opinion by going to www.lawyersusaonline.com and searching the Lawyers USA website.
Entire contents copyrighted © 2011 by Dolan Media Company.
Published: Mon, Jun 13, 2011
headlines Ingham County
- MSU Law Moot Court team of two 3L students emerges national champions at First Amendment Competiton in D.C.
- MSU Law captivated by prominent Harvard professor analyzing artificial intelligence
- OWLS Meeting
- Advocate: Former insurance pro studies in Dual JD program
- Man with disabilities settles accessibility lawsuit
headlines National
- Nikole Nelson champions a national model to bring legal services to those without access
- Social media and your legal career
- OJ Simpson estate accepts $58M claim by father of Ron Goldman, killed along with Nicole Brown Simpson
- Law prof who called for military action and end to Israel sues over teaching suspension
- The advantages of using an AI agent in contract review
- Courthouse rock, political talk lead to potential suspension for Elvis-loving judge




