![]() Issues: (1) Whether, despite the Supreme Court’s “well established” interpretation of the Sherman Act, U.S. These and other petitions of the week are below:Īnimal Science Products, Inc. The 1st Circuit also rejected this argument.) (In a separate issue, Gottesfeld argues that the judge exceeded his discretion because the judge responded to Gottesfeld’s three motions for recusal alleging conflicts of interests with only the directive, “Motion denied,” without any explanation or disclosure. ![]() Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit affirmed, on the ground that “the statute does not require that the judge who grants the continuance must be the same judge who sets forth in the record the reasons for the ultimate decision to exclude time.” In his petition, Gottesfeld maintains that the circuits are split on this question. After Gottesfeld filed a motion to dismiss, a second judge found a justification for the continuances in that Gottesfeld had “indicated that he was ‘seriously considering’ a plea agreement.” The U.S. Despite the statutory requirement, Gottesfeld argues, the judge did not “set forth” any reasons in the record for why the “ends of justice” supported the continuances. United States, Martin Gottesfeld was indicted 246 days after his arrest, after six ends-of-justice continuances. In his petition, Olsen claims circuit splits over aspects of the 9th Circuit’s analysis. The chief judge’s moratorium on jury trials in the Central District did indeed make Olsen’s trial impossible, the 9th Circuit held. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed, ruling that the district court erred in focusing on only the physical possibility of holding a trial. By statute, one factor that can support a continuance for the “ends of justice” occurs when “the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible.” Noting that the state courthouse across the street was conducting jury trials (and that other businesses in the county were open), the judge determined that having a jury trial in Olsen’s case was not “impossible.” The U.S. After the chief judge denied this request, the judge in Olsen’s case dismissed the indictment with prejudice. The parties in Olsen’s case initially agreed to postpone the trial until October 2020, but the judge denied the government’s request for another continuance and asked the chief judge to summon jurors. ![]() District Court for the Central District of California did not hold any jury trials until May 2021. Originally scheduled for May 2020, Jeffrey Olsen’s trial was delayed after the beginning of the pandemic. United States raises claims under the Speedy Trial Act related to delays in jury trials during the COVID-19 pandemic. Finally, when a judge dismisses a case under the Speedy Trial Act, the judge may at times do so “with prejudice,” barring the government from seeking a new indictment for the conduct. However, the Speedy Trial Act allows for continuances in certain situations, including “on the basis of findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.” In such cases, the court must “set forth” the reasons for its findings, according to statutory factors. ![]() If the government fails to meet these deadlines, the defendant can move to dismiss the indictment. Under the Speedy Trial Act, the government must file an indictment within 30 days of arresting someone, and the trial must begin within 70 days of the indictment. This week we highlight cert petitions that ask the Supreme Court to consider, among other things, claims from two criminal defendants under the Speedy Trial Act, which dictates timeframes for different stages of criminal prosecutions.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |