United States v. Tinklenberg
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Feb 22, 2011
|May 26, 2011||8-0||Breyer||OT 2010|
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 â€œdelay resulting from any pretrial motionâ€ from the Actâ€™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.
Plain English Summary:
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).
- Opinion analysis: Pretrial motions stop Speedy Trial clock (James Bickford)
- This week at the Court: In Plain English (Lisa McElroy)
- Argument recap: Speedy Trial Act, motion time, and â€œun-cert-worthy questionsâ€ (Brooks Holland)
- Argument preview: Pretrial motions and calculating deadlines under the Speedy Trial Act (Adam Schlossman)
Briefs and DocumentsMerits Briefs
- Brief for Petitioner the United States of America
- Brief for Respondent Jason Louis Tinklenberg
- Reply Brief for Petitioner the United States of America