United States v. Julius Greer
527 F. App'x 225
3rd Cir.2013Background
- Greer was indicted on four counts for conspiracy to commit robbery, robbery, and two weapons offenses related to a 2009 Philadelphia office robbery.
- All co-defendants pled guilty; Long testified against Greer, claiming Greer orchestrated the robbery.
- Indictment filed October 28, 2010; Greer moved to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act on August 12, 2011; district court denied.
- Greer was tried over five days in October 2011 and convicted on all counts; sentence totaled 180 months plus restitution.
- Greer challenged the Speedy Trial Act clock calculations and argued the reasonable-doubt jury instruction was plainly erroneous.
- On appeal, the Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting both Speedy Trial Act challenges and the challenged reasonable-doubt instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation and review standard for Speedy Trial Act | Greer did raise S.T.A. issues below; should be reviewed for plain error. | Government argued waiver for not raising specific issues below. | Not waived; plain-error review applied. |
| Whether non-excludable days elapsed under the S.T.A. | Greer contends substantial non-excludable days elapsed before dismissal motion. | District court properly excluded days under S.T.A. continuances and pretrial motions. | Sixty-eight non-excludable days; no S.T.A. violation. |
| Effect of ends-of-justice continuances on the clock | Certain ends-of-justice orders were not properly justified for exclusion. | Continued exclusion was proper and did not amount to plain error. | No plain error; continuances properly excluded. |
| Reasonable-doubt jury instruction | Two-inference language potentially unconstitutional and not cured by model instruction. | Instruction substantially tracked circuit model and was not plainly erroneous. | Instruction not plainly erroneous; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Lattany, 982 F.2d 866 (3d Cir. 1992) (reviewing Speedy Trial Act compliance and continuances)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (S. Ct. 2006) (requires identifying and tallying days on the speedy clock)
- United States v. Isaac, 134 F.3d 199 (3d Cir. 1998) (reasonable doubt instruction standards; cautions on two-inference charge)
- United States v. Jacobs, 44 F.3d 1219 (3d Cir. 1995) (disapproves two-inference instruction; cautions regarding it)
- United States v. Rivas, 493 F.3d 131 (3d Cir. 2007) (plain-error review and motions to suppress evidence context)
- United States v. Sussman, 709 F.3d 155 (3d Cir. 2013) (plain-error review framework and discretion)
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (waiver concept under Speedy Trial Act (cited for waiver discussion))