

Retro alarm clock on wooden table, vintage styleBy: Sara Kropf




The Basics of the Speedy Trial Act

The Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq., provides:


Under the statute, then, you get a specific date for your trial. The purpose of the Act is to “assure a speedy trial.”

What does that mean in the real world?

First, the information or indictment must be filed within 30 days of the defendant’s arrest or service of the summons. Id. § 3161(b).

Second, when a defendant pleads not guilty, the trial “shall commence within seventy days” after the later of the filing date of the indictment or when the defendant first appears in court. Id. § 3161(c). However, the trial cannot begin “less than thirty days from the date on which the defendant first appears through counsel or expressly waives counsel and elects to proceed pro se.” Id. § 3161(d).

In white-collar cases, which are usually on the complex side, trial will start within 70 days after your client is indicted or has his initial appearance. You are guaranteed at least 30 days to prepare for trial.

In theory, if the government violates your speedy trial rights, the charges against you may be dismissed. This is a long-shot argument and unlikely in a complex white-collar case.

Defense-Side Delays Are Excluded from the 70-Day Limit

This 70-day period is far from absolute. The statute defines all sorts of times when the clock is stopped as a result of “proceedings concerning the defendant.” Id. 3161(h)).

Many of the reasons are not relevant to a white-collar case but here are the key ones:

  • Delay from any interlocutory appeal (so, if you appeal a privilege ruling, your Speedy Trial Act rights slow down)
  • Delay from filing “any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion”
  • Delay from court’s consideration of proposed plea agreement
  • Delay resulting from “the absence or unavailability of the defendant or an essential witness.”

The Government Can Get a Delay, Too

It also allows the government to seek a delay if it serves “the ends of justice.” Specifically, the statute excludes delay



The Act also defines a whole host of reasons for when a court should grant a delay for the government. Id. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i)-(iv).





Because the list is so broad, it’s very likely the government can get a delay whenever it wants.

The Act doesn’t allow a court to give the government a continuance just because it asks. It provides that a court shall not grant a continuance because the court’s docket is congested or because of “lack of diligent preparation or failure to obtain available witnesses on the part of the attorney for the Government.”

We’ll talk later about the possible trial strategy to seek a speedy trial and force the government to go to trial before it is ready. This section of the statute makes that strategy a challenging one, since the courts will surely be disposed to give the government enough time to prepare (just as many judges are disposed to give the defense enough time to prepare).

Waiving Speedy Trial Rights

In 2006, the Supreme Court held in Zedner v. United States that defendants cannot prospectively waive their rights under the Speedy Trial Act. This is because the government has an interest in speedy trials, so that witnesses and evidence do not go missing and to ensure that a defendant does not commit other crimes before trial.

Justice Alito wrote the opinion, so you know it’s not going to be a home run for criminal defendants (though the defendant in the case won). Zedner noted that

Conspicuously, §3161(h) has no provision excluding periods of delay during which a defendant waives the application of the Act, and it is apparent from the terms of the Act that this omission was a considered one.

It went on to explain that

The purposes of the Act also cut against exclusion on the grounds of mere consent or waiver. If the Act were designed solely to protect a defendant’s right to a speedy trial, it would make sense to allow a defendant to waive the application of the Act. But the Act was designed with the public interest firmly in mind. . . That public interest cannot be served, the Act recognizes, if defendants may opt out of the Act entirely.

Even in light of Zedner’s holding, though, courts routinely accept a defendant’s waiver of his rights. Or, the court will simply find that a continuance serves the “ends of justice.”

A defendant will waive his rights to any challenge to a conviction based on Speedy Trial Act violations if he does not raise it before trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). This will rarely arise in a white-collar case, but if your client believes he has a challenge, be sure to seek dismissal before trial starts.

Check Your Local Rules!

How many times have you heard someone say, “check your local rules” during a CLE? Well, it’s true here too.

When Congress enacted the Speedy Trial Act, it also required each district court to enact a speedy trial plan. Here’s a link to the D.D.C. plan, so you can see what one looks like. It includes certain procedural limits and information about how your particular court implements the Act.

In the next post, we’ll get into the risks and possible rewards of seeking a speedy trial. I plan to incorporate the quote “Justice delayed is justice denied.” You didn’t think these two posts wouldn’t include that oft-quoted maxim, did you?

One comment

Leave a Reply


WordPress.com Logo


Google photo


Twitter picture


Facebook photo


Connecting to %s