Opinion ID: 775404
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Compliance with the STA

Text: 113 In enacting the STA, Congress imposed specific time limitations on the district courts in order to make the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial more effective. H.R. Rep. No. 96-390, at 2-3 (1979), reprinted in 1979 U.S.C.C.A.N. 805, 807. Thus, a defendant must be tried within 70 days of the filing of the indictment or the defendant's first appearance before a judicial officer, whichever occurs later. Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321, 322 (1986). However, not every day between the indictment or appearance and the trial counts toward the 70-day limit. The STA specifies a number of circumstances that can suspend the running of the time. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). We start with the facts needed to do the STA calculations. 114 Scott was indicted on March 25, 1999, and arraigned on April 14, 1999. On August 19, 1999, Scott moved to suppress all evidence seized in two searches, of his house on March 16, 1999 and of his computer on April 8, 1999. Scott argued that the searches were unlawful due to insufficient probable cause, lack of particularity, the search exceeding the scope of the warrant, and noncompliance with Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41. Scott argued the government could not rely on the plain view doctrine as to items seized beyond those described in the warrants. In its opposition to the motion, the government said that it would not offer most of the evidence to which Scott objected, and that it would offer only ten items on a plain view rationale. It provided no argument as to why those items fell within the plain view doctrine. In his reply, Scott conceded two of those ten disputed items were admissible, but disputed the remainder. He also pointed out that the government had failed to provide any specific argument as to the other eight items purportedly justified by the plain view doctrine. 115 At a pretrial conference in August 1999, a hearing on Scott's pretrial motion to suppress was set for September 16, 1999. On September 16, when the attorneys for both sides arrived in court for the hearing, they agreed to submit the motion on the filings because of inclement weather. At the brief court proceeding, the trial judge stated: [i]f, as I wrestle with the papers, I think that I want to hear from anyone, you can be sure that I will schedule a hearing and not just go ahead on the paper record. The judge then concluded by stating that he would take [the matter] under advisement on the record as it's been prepared. The court evidently concluded that a hearing was not required. 116 On January 18, 2000, 124 days after the September 16 proceeding, the district court issued a memorandum and order denying virtually all of Scott's claims in the motion to suppress. United States v. Scott, 83 F. Supp. 2d 187 (D. Mass. 2000). However, as to items the government proffered on the plain view doctrine, the court requested the parties to prepare a list of items disputed (although the effect of the prior filings was to do that), and to brief the admissibility of each one. Id. at 201. The district court thus seemed responsive to the argument defendant had made in his September 16 reply about the lack of item by item argument from the government. The court did not set any date for the additional filings to be made. As it turned out, by February, it became clear that no additional submissions from the parties were necessary because the government agreed it would not use any of that evidence. 117 Scott filed a timely motion to dismiss the indictment for violation of the Speedy Trial Act on March 8, 2000. The district court orally denied Scott's motion on March 22, 2000, justifying in STA terms the 124 days it had taken to decide the motion to suppress. The court reasoned that by stating that it might need additional submissions from the parties it made itself clear that the matter was not formally under advisement, despite its use of those very words at the conclusion of the September 16, 1999 proceeding. Therefore the entire period of time from the filing of the motion, to the hearing on that motion, to the partial decision on the motion, was, in the court's view, excludable under the STA. This is not a situation in which the district court invoked the ends of justice rationale of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). The district court was explicit that its only reason for denying the STA motion was that it requested further filings. 118 We review issues of law under the STA de novo and review factual determinations for clear error. United States v. Rodriguez, 63 F.3d 1159, 1162 (1st Cir. 1995). In 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h), the STA outlines several situations in which time is excluded from the 70-day limit between the indictment or appearance of the defendant and the trial. For example, the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and the hearing on the motion is excludable: delay resulting from any pretrial motion, from the filing of the motion through the conclusion of the hearing on, or other prompt disposition of, such motion is excludable. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(F). 119 Once the motion is actually under advisement, the trial court has up to 30 excludable days to decide it: delay reasonably attributable to any period, not to exceed thirty days, during which any proceeding concerning the defendant is actually under advisement by the court is excludable. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(J). Normally this means that the court must decide the motion within 30 days after a hearing on that motion. Rodriguez, 63 F.3d at 1163. However, if the court requires further filings at the hearing, then the 30 day period runs from the date of the last filing. Henderson, 476 U.S. at 331. If the matter is taken on the papers alone, a decision must be rendered within 30 days of the last submission. United States v. Salimonu, 182 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir. 1999); United States v. Barnes, 159 F.3d 4, 11 (1st Cir. 1998); Rodriguez, 63 F.3d at 1163; United States v. Rush, 738 F.2d 497, 505 (1st Cir. 1984); see also United States v. Wilson, 835 F.2d 1440, 1442 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 120 In Henderson, the Supreme Court that held subsections (F) and (J), read together, mean that the STA permits an exclusion of up to 30 days while the district court has a motion 'under advisement,' i.e., 30 days from the time the court receives all the papers it reasonably expects. 476 U.S. at 328-29. As Henderson notes, subsection (F) controls two situations: 121 The first arises when a pretrial motion requires a hearing: subsection (F) on its face excludes the entire period between the filing of the motion and the conclusion of the hearing. The second situation concerns motions that require no hearing and that result in a prompt disposition. There, the promptness requirement was intended to provide a point at which time will cease to be excluded, where motions are decided on the papers filed without hearing. S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34. The point at which time will cease to be excluded is identified by subsection (J), which permits an exclusion of 30 days from the time a motion is actually under advisement by the court. Without the promptness requirement in subsection (F), a court could exclude time beyond subsection (J)'s 30-day under advisement provision simply by designating the additional period as time from the filing of the motion through its disposition under subsection (F). 122 476 U.S. at 329. 123 This case presents a hybrid situation. Although the motion to suppress was set for hearing on September 16, 1999, no hearing was actually held. Instead, the parties submitted on the papers, and the court explicitly took the matter under advisement. Thus, this could be viewed as a situation in which there was no hearing and so the requirement on the district court was one of prompt disposition of the matter under subsection (F); it could also be viewed as under advisement, and so subject to the 30-day limit for decision in subsection (J). Henderson, however, makes it clear that the difference does not matter to the time allowed -- in either situation no more than 30 days are excluded: [T]he phrase 'prompt disposition' was intended to prevent a district court from using subsection (F) to exclude time after a motion is taken under advisement when that time fails to qualify for exclusion under subsection (J). Id. 124 The Supreme Court also noted that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary had explained: 125 [I]n using the words prompt disposition, the committee intends to make it clear that, in excluding time between filing and disposition on the papers, the Committee does not intend to permit circumvention of the 30-days, under advisement provision contained in Subsection (h)(1)(J). Indeed, if motions are so simple or routine that they do not require a hearing, necessary advisement time should be considerably less than 30 days. 126 Id. (quoting S. Rep. No. 96-212, at 34 (1979)). 127 Henderson also addressed the situation where the court determines that it needs additional submissions on a motion which required a hearing. The Court noted that the statute prescribes that for motions decided solely on the papers, Congress has allowed exclusion of time during which the parties are filing their briefs. Henderson, 476 U.S. at 331 (discussing subsections (F) and (J)). The same rule, the Court held, applies to exclude the period after the hearing when the court is awaiting additional briefing. Id. 128 Thus, the periods of exclusion under the Act which are unrestricted in time include the time between the filing of the motion and the hearing on the motion, and the period of time to obtain additional filings needed for disposition of the motion. See Salimonu, 182 F.3d at 67-69 (two-year delay in holding hearing is excludable time); United States v. Staula, 80 F.3d 596, 601 (1st Cir. 1996) (STA excludes time between filing of motion and hearing on motion even if the delay is overlong, inexplicable, or unreasonable). Once the additional filings are submitted, and a hearing is not required, the court must decide promptly, within 30 days. 129 The closest case we can find to our situation is United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537 (7th Cir. 1983). There, the trial court took a pretrial motion under advisement (after post-hearing motions), kept it under advisement for more than three months and then said it needed additional filings. Id. at 543. The court rejected the argument that the entire period was excludable: the requirement of prompt disposition in section 3161(h)(1)(F) may not be circumvented by . . . ordering the hearing reopened more than 30 days after the matter has been taken under advisement. Id. at 544. We agree. 130 The STA makes no provision for what the district court did here: not decide the motion for 124 days and then retroactively seek to explain the lack of prompt disposition by saying it needed additional filings, although it had taken the matter under advisement earlier. Nor does the STA make any provision for a district court effectively to take a matter under advisement for decision, but then to avoid the STA timeline by saying that matter was not under advisement within the meaning of the Act. We do not think the STA permits either course of action. Such an approach would undermine the purposes of the Act. 131 Congress plainly wanted even more complicated motions than the one here to be decided within 30 days of a hearing, and less complicated motions, decided without a hearing, to be decided promptly, within that 30-day period. Congress was also concerned about holding the district courts to the STA framework and avoiding loopholes. That concern has been shared by the circuit courts. See United States v. Grosz, 76 F.3d 1318, 1325 n.7 (5th Cir. 1996); United States v. Moran, 998 F.2d 1368, 1371-72 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Brenna, 878 F.2d 117, 122 (3rd Cir. 1989) (per curiam); United States v. Crane, 776 F.2d 600, 606-07 (6th Cir. 1985); United States v. Tunnessen, 763 F.2d 74, 77 (2d Cir. 1985); United States v. Tibboel, 753 F.2d 608, 611 (7th Cir. 1985); United States v. Carey, 746 F.2d 228, 230 (4th Cir. 1984); United States v. Frey, 735 F.2d 350, 353 (9th Cir. 1984); United States v. Richmond, 735 F.2d 208, 216 (6th Cir. 1984); Janik, 723 F.2d at 545; United States v. Gonzalez, 671 F.2d 441, 444 (11th Cir. 1982). In Staula, this Circuit also warned that it would not permit . . . the district court . . . to jerry-build a 'hearing' in order to thwart the concinnous operation of the Speedy Trial Act. 80 F.3d at 602 n.3. 18 132 We realize our holding may pose practical problems for a trial judge who after taking a motion under advisement decides that additional filings are required. The answer inherent in the structure of the STA is that the judge must pay prompt attention to the materials that have been filed with the motion. A hearing date need not be scheduled until the court has had the opportunity to review the materials and to determine if additional filings are needed. That should, in most instances, avoid the problem presented here. 133 Still, it is possible that a judge in good faith does not reach the conclusion that additional filings are required to decide a motion until he or she works on the motion after it is taken under advisement. Nonetheless, Congress has imposed a 30 day rule for the decision of motions. One would expect a court working under a 30-day limit to identify the need for additional filings early in that period and so notify the parties. Under those rare circumstances, excluding the period of time between the request for additional filings and the receipt of those filings would be permissible, but the time involved in deciding the motion would remain 30 days. In some situations, some further exclusion might be in order, in the form of tolling the 30-day period. 19 134 By this holding, we do not adopt a flat rule that a district court may never exceed the time limits in the STA and then justify it after the fact. Some future set of facts, perhaps involving an express and proper invocation of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8), may support such an action. However, the disciplines of the time limits in the STA are better maintained by explanations given before the clock runs out.