Opinion ID: 773461
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: STA Claim

Text: 26 In addition to his constitutional claim, Lam argues that the delay in bringing his case to trial violated the STA. Subject to certain important exceptions, the STA requires, inter alia, that all criminal trials commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. 18 U.S.C.§ 3161(c)(1). Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2), If a defendant is not brought to trial within th[is] time limit . . . the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant, either with or without prejudice. We find, however, that Lam waived his right to claim an STA violation because he failed to file a motion to dismiss the indictment until after his trial. 27 The text of the STA reads, in relevant part, as follows: Failure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismiss under this section.  18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). Given that Lam waited thirteen months after his trial had begun to file a motion to dismiss, the plain language of the statute compels our conclusion that Lam waived his statutory speedy trial right. 11