United States v. John E. Crooks, United States of America v. Joseph R. Laird, Jr., United States of America v. John E. Crooks and Joseph R. Laird
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
ON PETITIONS FOR REHEARING
1Opinion of the Court
CANBY, Circuit Judge:
Defendants Crooks and Laird both petition for rehearing of our decision affirming their convictions, United States v. Crooks, 804 F.2d 1441 (9th Cir.1986). In rejecting their petitions, we find it necessary to modify the analysis of the Speedy Trial Act that we adopted in our prior opinion.
The issue we dealt with was how to measure the period of excludable delay that § 3161(h)(1)(E) specifies for an interlocutory appeal. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(E). The question was when the excludable period ended. We applied § 3161(e) by analogy; that section applies to retrials, and…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- United States v. Elliott Van Brandy, Gardie Shine, and Charles PattersonCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
- United States v. John E. Crooks, United States of America v. Joseph R. Laird, Jr., United States of America v. John E. Crooks and Joseph R. LairdCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- United States v. Dennis Ronald Ross, United States of America v. Richard Alan ReichardCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1984
3Cited by31 opinions
- United States v. Robert E. Iles, Sr.Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 1990
- United States v. Rick K. VoCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2005
- United States v. Sears, Roebuck and Company, Inc., AKA Sears, AKA Sears & RoebuckCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1989
- 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2372, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 4240 United States of America v. Mary Peggy Moore, United States of America v. Lee Roy WileyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1997
- United States v. Charles J. KrallCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · 1988
26 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.