Document: 547 U.S. 489 (2006) ZEDNER v. UNITED STATES No. 05-5992. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 18, 2006. Decided June 5, *492 Edward S. Zas, by appointment the Court, 546 1167, argued cause for petitioner. With him on briefs were Barry D. Leiwant and Sean Hecker. Daryl Joseffer brief Solicitor General Clement, Assistant Attorney Fisher, Deputy Dreeben, Thomas E. Booth. JUSTICE ALITO delivered opinion Court. This case requires us to consider application doctrines waiver, judicial estoppel, harmless error a violation Speedy Trial Act 1974 (Speedy or Act), 18 C. §§ 3161-3174. The generally federal criminal trial begin within 70 days after defendant is charged makes an initial appearance, § 3161(c)(1), but contains detailed scheme under which certain specified periods delay are not counted. In this case, petitioner's did indictment. Indeed, his commence until more than seven years filing indictment, petitioner, at suggestion judge, signed blanket, prospective waiver rights Act. We address following questions: whether was effective; petitioner judicially estopped from challenging *493 validity waiver; judge's failure make findings required exclude period particular provision Act, 3161(h)(8), error. I March 1996, attempted open accounts financial institutions using counterfeit $10 million States bonds. quality counterfeiting was, put it mildly, expert. One bond purported be issued "Ministry Finance U. A." 401 F.3d 36, 39 (CA2 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Others contained misspelled words such as "Thunted States" "Onited (United States), "Dhtladelphla" (Philadelphia), "Cgicago" (Chicago), "forevev" (forever). Id., 39, n. 1 After presented these bonds, Secret Service contacted, arrested. Following arraignment complaint, he released bond. On 4, grand jury in Eastern District New York indicted counts attempting defraud institution, 1344, one count knowingly possessing obligations States, 472. 26, citing complexity granted what termed "ends-of-justice" continuance, see 3161(h)(8)(B)(ii), September 6. 6, another time November 8. At 8 status conference, requested, without opposition Government, further adjournment January 1997. Concerned about difficulty fitting into its heavily scheduled calendar prospect that might "only waive [the Act] so long convenient [him] waive," instructed follows: "I think if I'm going give you adjournment, will *494 have take all time." App. 71. Petitioner's counsel responded defense would "waive time. That problem. issue case." 72. then addressed directly appears explain operation 3162(a)(2), whose does deemed waived right move dismissal information indictment she file motion prior entry guilty plea. reasoned: "[I]f can inaction, i. e., raising dismiss, affirmatively, knowledgeably, intelligently your do so, speedy dismiss trial." 73. court told "prepared start . away," ibid., continuance granted, wait some because had "fairly big cas[e] [wa]s set eight months [trial] starts before start," warned, "you may done." 74. produced preprinted formapparently own devisingcaptioned "Waiver Rights." 79. led through form, both it. Among other things, form stated: wish my (18 3161 et seq.), Rules Circuit Plan adopted Court." Ibid. also been advised fully understand any against me motions signed, *495 requested conference 31, 1997, agreed. 77. 31 sought yet "to tap proper channels authenticate [the] bonds." 81. Petitioner Government emphasized request raised no "waived time," though suggested "would like try sometime 1997." discussion between need investigate authenticity seemed obviously fake offered May 86. admonished "[g]et work" noted: "This [case] year old. That's enough 86, 85. Nevertheless, apparently satisfied with "for made mention support exclusion 91 next appearance 2, 1997 (1997 continuance). four followed saw variety proceedings trial. See F.3d, 40-41. Counsel relieved insisted argue bonds genuine, ultimately counsel's withdraw. court's suggestion, examined psychiatrist, who determined competent stand asked proceed pro se serve subpoenas on, among others, President, Chairman Federal Reserve Board, General, Secretary State, late Chinese leader Chiang Kaishek, "`The Treasury Department International Corporation.'" 40; 129. quashed subpoenas, trial, only conclude morning selection *496 inquire once again competency. dismissed panel, found incompetent, committed custody hospitalization treatment. interlocutory appeal, however, Appeals vacated order remanded hearings. July August 2000, held those hearings received briefing competency issue. 7, 2001, while remained submission, moved comply denied ground mentioning passing complex. 128-129. same order, incompetent. 135. latter determination upheld evaluation. several hospitalization, delusional released. Finally, 2003, indicted, began. six institution,[1] sentenced 63 imprisonment. affirmed judgment conviction.[2] Acknowledging "a defendant's ineffective" public interest served compliance exception situations "`when conduct causes contributes *497 delay.'" 43-44 (quoting Gambino, 59 353, 360 1995)). "[D]oubt[ing] expeditious prosecution rule allows defendants protest grant their request," heard complain 91-day early 45. went suggest there "can doubt district could properly excluded based ends justice" light additional prepare. certiorari resolve disagreement Courts standard analyzing has effective 1085 (2006). II As noted above, recognizes cases vary widely valid reasons greater cases. To provide necessary flexibility, includes list computing must start. 3161(h). For example, excludes "delay resulting concerning defendant," 3161(h)(1), absence unavailability essential witness," 3161(h)(3)(A), fact mentally incompetent physically unable trial," 3161(h)(4), "[a] reasonable when joined codefendant whom run severance granted," 3161(h)(7). *498 Much Act's flexibility furnished governs ends-of-justice continuances, we out relevant part margin.[3] permits court, considering factors, on-the-record justice *499 granting outweigh public's interests gives discretionwithin limits subject specific proceduresto accommodate limited delays case-specific needs. promote requirements, enforcement sanctions provisions. If time, move, plea, charges, meritorious timely filed, choose prejudice. making choice, account, "the seriousness offense; facts circumstances dismissal; impact reprosecution administration justice." 3162(a)(2). designed needlessly subverting important prosecutions. severe sanction (dismissal prejudice) available use where appropriate, knowledge potentially result imposition powerful incentive careful compliance. less lets avoid unduly impairing laws even imposes costs encourages When prejudice, prosecutor course seekand great majority able obtaina new prescribed applicable statute limitations expired, returned date dismissal." 3288. *500 background mind, turn questions unusual procedures case. III contends, seriously dispute, prospectively Act.[4] agree. A our above suggests, comprehensively regulates begin. Section 3161(h) specifies detail numerous categories counted applying deadlines. Conspicuously, excluding during waives apparent terms omission considered one. Instead simply allowing opt demands requests fit exclusions subsection (h). Subsection (h)(8), plainly meant cover many requests. factors deciding "reasonable obtain counsel," "continuity "effective preparation" counsel. 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv). whenever wanted ever considerations rubric exclusion. purposes cut grounds mere consent waiver. *501 solely protect sense allow But firmly mind. See, e. g., 3161(h)(8)(A) (to continuanceeven "granted ... defendant"the find "that best trial" (emphasis added)). cannot served, recognizes, entirely. 2 interpretation entirely accord legislative history. House Senate Reports illustrate, just benefit by, reducing defendants' opportunity commit crimes pretrial release preventing extended deterrent effect punishment. Rep. 93-1021, pp. 6-8 (citing "bail problems," offenses release, "seriously undermined value process" debilitating effect[s] upon system"); H. R. 93-1508, p. ("The purpose bill assist crime danger recidivism requiring trials "). Report accompanying 1979 amendments finer point it: "[T]he seeks go beyond defendant; although Sixth Amendment societal prompt dispositions, primarily safeguards rightwhich society's." 96-212, 29; id., 6; 96-390, 3 (1979). Because content remain indeed welcome delay, unsurprising *502 Congress refrained empowering waivers application. 29 ("Because emphasis right, ought permitted hers alone relinquish"). B reasoned 3162(a)(2) supports conclusion strictures states "[f]ailure plea nolo contendere shall constitute section." completed (by declining plea), follows, Court's reasoning went, should allowed disagree. It significant waivers, reason treat retrospective similarly. Allowing undermine caseslike handin prosecution, defense, happy detriment interest. sort pose comparable know actually entered forgo moving dismiss. consequence, retain strong sure begins broad opt-out rights, serves two unrelated purposes. First, assigns role spotting violations defendantsfor *503 obvious they greatest perform task.[5] Second, entered, effects prejudice ensuring expensive time-consuming mooted late-filed Act) prevents undue gamesmanship.[6] reasons, reject reliance follows time" ineffective. therefore Government's alternative below. IV contends "petitioner's express induced finding ..., basic principles estoppel preclude enjoying lack finding." Brief 10. *504 basis doctrine estoppel. explained: "`[W]here party assumes position legal proceeding, succeeds maintaining position, thereafter, changed, assume contrary especially acquiesced formerly taken him.' Davis Wakelee, 156 680, 689 (1895). rule, known `generally prevailing phase argument relying contradictory prevail phase.' Pegram Herdrich, 530 211, 227, (2000)." Hampshire Maine, 532 742, 749 (2001). Although equitable thus reduced precise formula test, "several typically inform decision apply case: party's later clearly inconsistent earlier position. courts regularly succeeded persuading accept third consideration seeking assert derive unfair advantage impose opposing estopped." 750-751 (citations internal present first identify "position" enforce. There three possibilities: (1) promise (2) (implied) enforceable, (3) claim needed *505 research None rise unwilling recognize doing swallow no-waiver policy. little difference exchange permitting hold (mistaken) agreement "succee[d] persuading" proposition valid. contrary, sign. And (clear inconsistency detriment) isolation predominate where, here, itself accepted objection. representation gather evidence bonds' took "clearly inconsistent" now takes different factual predicate statutorily authorized establishedfor obtained falsely representing midst working expert fact, *506 focus requirements Rather, parties proceeded assumption disregarded. Nothing suggests question viewed anything case-management lay scope discretion. Under circumstances, understanding attorney represent sound exercise discretion managing calendar. permissible Accordingly, excludability continuance. While conceding "never record" balance, 30, argues contemporaneouslyand supplied remandbecause, given balance supported argument. place, findings, second permit remand proposes. grants "se[t] forth, record either orally writing, reasons" interests. 3161(h)(8)(A). clear made, (the *507 court's] findings"), ambiguous precisely However ambiguity resolved, very least implies rules 3162(a)(2).[7] ruling tally unexcluded days. This, turn, identifying explicit "[n]o accordance paragraph excludable unless sets forth [its] finding[s]." Thus, 3161(h)(8). Here, reference case's Therefore, clock. error, stemming technical finding, regarded harmless. Harmless-error review Rule Criminal Procedure 52(a) presumptively applies "all errors objection made," Neder 527 1, 7 (1999), "strong support" implied repeal 52, Vonn, 535 55, 65 (2002). conclude, provisions here. unequivocal. pleads guilty, "shall commence" "from (and public) *508 indictment" whichever later. 3161(c)(1) added). Delay period, commenced defendant." straightforward reading leads judge fails requisite regarding counted, dismissed. excused hard square categorical terms. Alabama Bozeman, 533 146, 153-154, 155 (2001) (no "`harmless'" "`technical'" Interstate Agreement Detainers' "antishuttling" "absolute language"). Applying harmless-error tend regulating continuances. most open-ended type recognized and, judges measure accommodating unusual, complex, difficult equally Congress, knowing continuances rigidly structured, *509 get hand subvert scheme. strategy then, counteract substantive open-endedness procedural strictness. findings. Excusing embodied Such approach almost always lead simple unlikely affect rights. 3161(h)(8) appropriate. V exceeded maximum 70-day provided violated, excludable. dismissal, leave determine instance reversed, consistent opinion. ordered. SCALIA, concurring judgment. concur history Part III-A-2. expressed elsewhere, believe language constitutes Law" meaning Bicameralism Presentment Clause Article I, *510 hence fashion entitles attention, text enacted statute. Conroy Aniskoff, 507 511, 518-528 (1993) (SCALIA, J., judgment). looks remainder amply establishes unambiguous. rejects possibility expresses relies supportthat protects well defendant. ante, 500-501 3161(h)(8)(A)). Use context conflicts views repeated statements plain, irrelevant. Gonzales, 520 6 (1997). "We stated presume legislature says means there. unambiguous, canon last: inquiry complete." Connecticut Nat. Bank Germain, 503 249, 253-254 (1992) seem harm committee reports sources merely plain intellectual piling-on addictive consequences. with, accustoms believing said single person floor debate report represents view wholeso sometimes say (when referring statement report) "Congress expressed" thus-and-so. Conroy, supra, 516-517. law reality naive belief. Moreover, confirms statutory text, contradicts meaning, rendering *511 ambiguous. illegitimate ill statuteand faceI join portion NOTES [1] [2] resentencing Booker, 543 220 (2005). us, note indicated 63-month sentence resentencing. 96CR285 (TCP) (EDNY, Oct. 27, 2005). [3] Title provides: "(A) Any taking action No "(B) determining subparagraph (A) "(i) Whether proceeding likely continuation impossible, miscarriage justice. "(ii) due number defendants, nature existence novel law, unreasonable expect adequate preparation established section. "(iv) which, whole, complex fall clause (ii), deny counsel, unreasonably continuity preparation, account diligence. "(C) general congestion calendar, diligent witnesses Government." [4] left Hill, 528 110, 117, (2000). [5] obtaining police compliance, benefit. energy expend connection devote [6] noted, minimum penalty level interfering laws. By specifying amount inconvenience limited, restricted ability strategic how (or comes out) [7] practice, course, near

Category: 0