Document: 476 U.S. 321 106 S.Ct. 1871 90 L.Ed.2d 299 Thomas J. HENDERSON, Scott O. Thornton and Ruth Freedman, Petitionersv.UNITED STATES. No. 84-1744. Argued April 1, 1986. Decided May 19, Syllabus The Speedy Trial Act (Act) commands that a defendant be tried within 70 days of the latest either filing an indictment or information, first appearance before judge magistrate. However, provision Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F) (hereafter subsection (F)), excludes from this time "[a]ny period delay resulting other proceedings concerning defendant, including . any pretrial motion, motion through conclusion hearing on, prompt disposition of, such motion." With regard to petitioners, who were ultimately convicted in Federal District Court charges relating manufacture, possession, distribution controlled substances, Act's 70-day commenced on September 3, 1980, but trial did not begin until November 1982, because various delays, those overlapping filings by petitioners Government with respect suppress certain evidence, posthearing submissions parties petitioners' for reconsideration court's denial suppress, dismiss violation Act. Appeals affirmed convictions, rejecting their contention under (F) only delays "reasonably necessary" could excluded period. Held: 1. Congress intended exclude limitation all between whether holding is necessary." plain terms statute was not. Moreover, Congress' express use phrase "reasonable delay" another indicates exclusion defined automatic. legislative history also supports reading (F). Nor does "or disposition" imply reasonably necessary may hearing. That language apply situations where motions are decided papers filed without Pp. 326-330. 2. Subsection after awaits additional needed proper motion. Although clear point, its structure requires excluded. 330-331. 3. Under facts case, there 69 nonexcludable trial, therefore violated. 331-333. 746 F.2d 619 (CA9 1984), affirmed. POWELL, J., delivered opinion Court, which BURGER, C.J., REHNQUIST, STEVENS, O'CONNOR, JJ., joined. WHITE, dissenting opinion, BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, joined, post, p. 333. Denise Anton, San Francisco, Cal., petitioners. Roger Clegg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice POWELL Court. 1 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. Supp. II), as amended 1979 1984, Section "delay This case us decide narrow questions limited it applies occasioned briefs motions. 2 * A jury arising out substances.S1 evidence at showed February 1980 petitioner Henderson, alias "Richard Martin," placed orders scientific supply company Ohio chemicals used manufacture illegal drugs. attracted attention Drug Enforcement Agency. Agents obtained warrant United States Magistrate, authorizing installation electronic transmitter one chemical containers. Henderson drove California Ohio, picked up second order June 24, headed west. lost tracking signal despite following both car plane, receive later July Freedman's house near Watsonville, California. search pursuant 17 revealed illicit drug factory. last codefendants, Peter Bell, arraigned 1980.2 3 indictment, appearance—in 3161(c)(1). timely would have 12, barring periods excludable delay. Overlapping Government, however, kept suppression pending March 25, 1981.3 court deferred decision receipt parties, December 15, 1981. See App. 29-31. finally denied January 1982. 4 From 25 10, Court—on moved set 23 reconsider suppress. On held Government's granted continuance 21 allow defense counsel file denying motion.4 After date 13, entered excluding, purposes 10 13 based allows satisfy "ends justice." Id., 32-33; see 3161(h)(8)(A).5 5 23, superseding two subsequently joined Judge almost months later, 8, bench date. He memorandum outlining his reasons exactly 30 later. At time, excluding October 8 again "interests Record, Doc. Nos. 98-99. 6 Petitioners appealed arguing, inter alia, computation 619, 622 1984). "excludes qualification." Ibid. noted had explicitly provided excludability depended reasonableness, done so Ferguson dissented, relying interpretations Circuits. 625-626. We certiorari resolve conflict among Circuits.6 474 900, 225, 88 224 (1985). now affirm. II 7 criminal must commence defendant's appearance, v. Rojas-Contreras, 231, 555, 537 (1985); (subsection (F)) these motions: "(h) shall computing information filed, offense commence: 9 "(1) Any to— 11 "(F) motion" (emphasis added). A. 12 face, caused "any motion," "from hearing." appear require "reasonable" excluded, although clearly knew how limit exclusion: 3161(h)(7), when codefendant whom has run no severance been granted." Apart single instance, every 3161(h) provides delay."7 excludes, example, consumed interlocutory appeal, 3161(h)(1)(E), competency examination, 3161(h)(1)(A), unavailability, 3161(h)(3)(A). As concluded: "The difference (7) (1) (6) strong indication (1)-(6) automatic." F.2d, 622. Amendments (F).8 shows aware breadth enacting Senate Judiciary Committee acknowledged "if basic standards consideration developed," liberalized "could become loophole undermine whole Act." S.Rep. 96-212, 34 (1979). In subsequent (F), House Representatives qualify way potential abuse statute. Instead adopted Senate's version "with intention potentially excessive abusive precluded district circuit guidelines, rules, procedures practice." H.R.Rep. 96-390, (1979), Code Cong. & Admin.News, 1979, pp. 805, 814. envisioned limitations should imposed rules rather than itself.9 Such developed 3166(f), provide assurance speedy 14 largely concede arguments advance contentions limiting (F)'s First, they contend "other implies unreasonably deferring Two Courts relied argument. Janik, 723 537, 543 (CA7 1983); Cobb, 697 38, 41-42 (CA2 1982). But connection 3161(h)(1)(J) (J)), while "under advisement," i.e., receives expects, undermines conclusion. "prompt prevent using taken advisement fails (J). 15 written disjunctive, situations. arises hearing: face entire situation concerns result disposition." There, promptness requirement "intended point will cease 34. "point excluded" identified (J), permits actually advisement" court. Without beyond (J)'s 30-day simply designating "disposition" explained: 16 "In words 'prompt disposition', committee intends make that, papers, intend permit circumvention 30-days, 'under advisement' contained (h)(1)(J). Indeed, if simple routine do hearing, considerably less days." conclude thereon. Petitioners' argument rests sentence immediately follows extract quoted above: "Nor made eligible postponing what Four support qualification Ray, 768 991, 998 (CA8 1985); Mitchell, 1040, 1047 (CA1 Novak, 715 810, 819 (CA3 1983), cert. sub nom. Ware States, 465 1030, 104 1293, 79 694 (1984); 44 19 sentence, appears paragraph discussing odds It contrary passages Reports specifically concern "hearings" supra, 327-328. decline read into Report. instead hold B 20 remaining issue needs Cf. 3161(h)(1) (excluding defendant"). we convinced structure, well reason, provisions designed placing position dispose See, e.g., 9-10. courts often find impossible hearings submitted factual materials, especially presents complicated issues. sensible automatically prior advisement, during remains unable rule awaiting submission materials. solely allowed briefs. §§ 3161(h)(1)(F), (J); 328-329. consistent materials held—motions recognized typically more difficult papers. III 22 calculate number trial. began arraignment Bell. 22, entered—with consent parties—a 12. 3161(h)(8)(A) "the interest 26-27; 623-624. challenged continuance, 1980. 27. 28. 3161(h)(1)(F). declined reach final further information. 28-29. 1981, response request evidentiary 31. excludable, plus take matter advisement. 14, 24 noticed need affect case. continued 21, afford opportunity ruling. found 34.10 reconsideration. ran 10. 33. stated new date, difficulty coordinating schedules five attorneys. similar extended ultimate Neither properly us. stands here, delay, violated.11 IV judgment Ninth Circuit 26 ordered. 27 BLACKMUN join, dissenting. 28 purpose 1974, quantify effective Sixth Amendment right (1979); 93-1021, (1974), U.S.Code 7401. To end, entitles dismissal against him he brought initial indictment. 3161(c), 3162. running period, These exclusions account specific recurring occur cases; limits established subvert very fulfill. Nonetheless, precisely achieved majority's reasoning, judges indefinitely disposing For I dissent. 29 interpreted majority, requiring Ante, 329-330. There promptly, reason irrelevant. Regardless postponed due stipulated sudden illness counsel, judge's play golf, concluded, clock standstill. determines helpful resolution prosecutor announces supplemental continues expects. Only considered "actually even then, (J)) begins again. majority reads 329. construed word "prompt" refer speed required handle motion; instead, merely serves designate excluded." say, inserted distinguish "final" disposition, resolution, court, thus avoiding (J) claiming unlimited sanctioned disposes (i.e., decides) 31 it, misread whole. motions, regardless disposed promptly. believe mean normally means, "performed readily immediately"; "given hesitation." Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 1816 (1976). Reading synonym "quick" antonym far logical statute, keeping overall merit all, cannot unless place, conducted just promptly 32 occurring making decision. portion "prompt," clear: forces submit needs, orderly manner. shown above, context motion); describes pace act ensuring can quickly possible. requirement, words, expressly endless needless assembly relevant material reasoned 33 efficient scheduling hearings, once court." Consistent then gives consider parties' governed holding, ante, 328-329, bearing Construing mandating supported history. explaining present form, "must together proposed change clause (ii) (h)(8)(B) involving 'preparation' 'pretrial proceedings'." (1979).1 rejected "unreasonable" suggestion "all practice, preparation excluded," finding "in cases, law novel issues fact simple." 33-34. Even cases "novel complex facts", concluded motions" necessary. Despite therefore, meant said declared "that Ibid.2 35 Adhering history, considering question reasonable amount defeat 997-999 1046-1047 543-544 819-820 43-45 1982); Smith, 563 F.Supp. 217, 219-220 (Md.1983), aff'd, 750 1233 (CA4 denied, 471 1057, 105 2122, 85 486 Hawker, 552 117, 124-125 (Mass.1982). Similarly, Judicial Conference recognizes "[i]n some circumstances, duration subject reasonableness requirement." Administration Criminal Law Guidelines Amended (Dec. rev., amendments Oct. F.R.D. 271, 289 (1984). Finally, commentators necessity construction, process fashion, undermining Misner, Act: Death Planning Process, Hastings L.J. 635, 654-655 (1981); Note, Trial: Constitutional Right Search Definition, 61 Geo.L.J. 657, 679, n. 136 (1973), reprinted Hearings S. 754 Subcommittee Rights Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., 61, 83, (1973). 36 agree wealth statutory, judicial, scholarly authority, manner, result, handling By computation, exception swallow doing, dissent below, "[w]hile sympathize per se desire 'easy' justify abrogation major Act—to insure trial." 627 reverse Circuit, remand determination reasonable. three conspiracy possess intent distribute methamphetamine phenyl-2-propanone, 846; Freedman possession methamphetamine, 842(a)(1); traveling interstate promote 1952(a)(3). Codefendant Bell severed All defendants generally fall codefendant. 3161(h)(7). Once measured his. evidence. 24-26. alleged misrepresentations affidavit supporting warrant. own rescheduled 26, 28, third request, 18, Meanwhile, reveal identity confidential informant. requested received reply responses, day before. 21-day 4. 23; 74-75. attorney basis findings ends justice served taking action outweigh best public No accordance sets forth, record orally writing, granting interests Several 998-999 Other Circuits 1984) (case below); Stafford, 1368, 1373 (CA11 1983). Horton, 705 1414, 1416 (CA5), 464 997, 496, 78 689 (1983). 3161(h)(1)(H), transporting district, places examination hospitalization," presumes over unreasonable. discussion 336-337, spent preparing pertinent Report reads: "Although witnesses contended finds approach primarily because, simple. presenting facts." Our note determine what, any, due. relies invoking standard. Post, 337-338, interpretation local rule, defer Circuit. rule. useful future include timetables, thereby giving substance obligations prosecutors unexplained failure 1982 argued party count 49 Title 3161(h)(8)(B) governs factors determining grant justice" authorized 3161(h)(8)(A). (h)(8)(B)(ii) provides: "Whether unusual complex, defendants, nature prosecution, existence law, unreasonable expect adequate itself section." characterizes dealing "time motions." 327, original). description ignores subsection, states "preparation itself." Furthermore, statement "holding removed lies. treating interval takes carves apply. construction exclusions, results defendant—the precise avoid. correct great deal reliance development guidelines practice establish allowable 328. disagree, left rules. might circuits acceptable sure standards, "Congress itself," 328, applicable "[a]ll pre-trial soon possible, priorities matters docket." Northern California, Plan Prompt Disposition Cases, Sec. II(4)(F)(4) (revised, Apr. 7, 1980), Rules 822-824 (West 1986). offer guidance, sufficient invoke standard Congress. Circuit's violated 9. record, lower cited 623 (1984), panel ever applied let alone

Category: 0