Legal Opinion · Dissent

United States v. Shellef

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Decided May 23, 2013No. Docket 11-876-crPublished

1Dissent

*113POOLER, Circuit Judge:

I respectfully dissent, because I think it error to conclude that Section 3161(e) permits a district court to retroactively grant continuances for re-trial. The text of Section 3161(e) is silent on the issue of when a district court may identify the factors that make trial within 70 days impractical. However, our Court’s speedy trial jurisprudence provides us with a framework that informs the analysis and requires finding Section 3161(e) continuances be granted prospectively.

When a defendant is to be retried following a successful appeal, the Speedy Trial Act (the “Act”)…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. United States v. James Tunnessen, Douglas Fullerton, and Michael Robert Reape, DefendantsCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
  2. United States v. Michael KellyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1995
  3. United States v. ShellefDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API