Court Opinion

ID: 9473666
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 04:36:10.044461+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:43:40.128458
License: Public Domain

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The majority has effectively repealed an act of Congress, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2), by holding that a defendant shall have less than the thirty days Congress provided for preparation for trial after indictment.
To justify its holding, the majority points to legislative history, but nothing in the legislative history indicates that Congress intended a balancing of any kind. The legislative history is to the contrary. The first sentence quoted from the legislative history shows the intent of Congress: “This provision [18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(2) ] assures the defendant some minimal time to prepare.” (Emphasis added.) The legislative history later states: “Prohibiting trial less than thirty days after the date the defendant appears in a position to begin his defense more fully protects basic due process rights.” (Emphasis added.)
The majority’s reliance on 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8) is likewise misplaced. Section 3161(h)(8) of Title 18 states:
(8)(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.
This appellant has not requested an “ends of justice” continuance as contemplated by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8). Rather, he has demanded the statutory time of thirty days for preparation as provided in the statute. If the majority is correct, Congress will never be able to determine minimal times for actions by federal courts. Congress and the courts fought that battle years ago; Congress won.
While no section of 18 U.S.C. § 3161 specifically covers the situation before us, the most analogous provision is 18 U.S.C. § 3161(d)(1) which states:
(d)(1) If any indictment or information is dismissed upon motion of the defendant, or any charge contained in a complaint filed against an individual is dismissed or otherwise dropped, and thereafter a complaint is filed against such defendant or individual charging him with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, or an information or indictment is filed charging such defendant with the same offense or an offense based on the same conduct or arising from the same criminal episode, the provisions of subsections (b) and (c) of this section shall be applicable with respect to such subsequent complaint, indictment, or information, as the case may be. [Emphasis added.]
A plain reading of section 3161(d)(1) shows that the thirty day minimum preparation time from section 3161(c)(2) is built into section 3161(d)(1).
We should follow the Ninth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Harris, 724 F.2d 1452 (9th Cir.1984): A defendant in all cases is entitled to thirty days between trial and the first appearance on the latest indictment.
Society has no interest in putting a defendant to trial in less than thirty days after indictment. Likewise, Congress’s power to legislate and promulgate rules of procedure for the conduct of business in the federal courts is too well established to be questioned or nullified.
Although the amended indictment appears to the majority to be nothing more than the addition of a few words, the truth is that the change of words changed the *1491theory of the government’s prosecution. This appellant is entitled to a new trial.