Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

BLOATE v. UNITED STATES

Docket No.: 08-728
Certiorari Granted: Apr 20 2009
Argued: October 6, 2009
Decided: March 8, 2010

Topics:

Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Miranda, Speedy Trial, abuse of discretion

PartyNames: Taylor James Bloate v. United States
Petitioner: Taylor James Bloate
Respondent: United States

Court Below: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Citation: 534 F.3d 893

Taylor James Bloate
v.
United States
Background:

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., requires that a criminal defendant be tried within 70 days of indictment or the defendant's first appearance in court, whichever is later. In calculating the 70-day period, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1) automatically excludes "delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant, including but not limited to * * * (D) 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" (emphasis added).

Question Presented:

The question presented here is: Whether time granted to prepare pretrial motions is excludable under § 3161(h)(1). As the Eighth Circuit explicitly acknowledged below, this question has divided the courts of appeals. The Fourth and Sixth Circuits have answered it in the negative; the Eighth Circuit and seven other circuits have answered it in the affirmative.

Question:

Is time granted to prepare pretrial motions automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)?

BLOATE v. UNITED STATES
ORAL ARGUMENT

October 6, 2009

Holding: reversed and remanded
Vote: 7-2
Opinion By: Justice Clarence Thomas

BLOATE v. UNITED STATES
Case Documents

1BLOATE v. UNITED STATES Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
2BLOATE v. UNITED STATES Oral Argument Transcript (PDF)
3BLOATE v. UNITED STATES Oral Argument Transcript (HTML)
4Opinion in BLOATE v. UNITED STATES
Additional documents for this case are pending review.