Editor's Note :

Editor's Note :

On both Tuesday and Wednesday we expect one or more decisions in argued cases; we will be live blogging both days beginning at 9:45 a.m.

Breaking News :

Breaking News :

United States v. Tinklenberg

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
09-1498 6th Cir. Feb 22, 2011
Tr.Aud.
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 “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

Merits Briefs

Amicus Briefs

Certiorari-stage documents

 
Share:
Term Snapshot
Awards