United States v. Tinklenberg

Docket No.
Op. Below
Argument
Feb 22, 2011
Tr.Aud.
Opinion
Vote
8-0
Author
Breyer
Term

Holding: For purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, which excludes delay resulting from any pretrial motion from the Act's requirement that a trial begin within seventy days of the arraignment, there is no requirement that the filing of a pretrial motion actually cause, or be expected to cause, a delay of the trial. Instead, the Speedy Trial clock stops running whenever a pretrial motion is filed, regardless whether the motion has any effect on when the trial begins. (Kagan, J., recused).

Plain English Holding: For purposes of the Speedy Trial Act, which excludes “delay resulting from any pretrial motion” from the Act’s requirement that a trial begin within seventy days of the arraignment, the clock stops running whenever a pretrial motion is filed, regardless whether the motion has any effect on when the trial begins.

Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on May 26, 2011. The Chief Justice and Justices Scalia and Thomas joined the opinion in part. Justice Scalia concurred in part and concurred in the judgment; the Chief Justice and Thomas joined that opinion as well. (Kagan, J., recused).

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Briefs and Documents

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY

Merits Briefs

Amicus Briefs

[##CERT-STAGE##]

CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY