746 F. Supp. 2d 159
D.D.C.2010Background
- Wheeler was arrested on Sept. 17, 2010 and hospitalized through Oct. 8–9, 2010.
- On Oct. 12, 2010 the government moved to exclude time under the Speedy Trial Act due to hospitalization.
- The Magistrate Judge denied the exclusion motion on Oct. 25, 2010.
- On Oct. 20, 2010 Wheeler moved to dismiss the complaint for failing to indict within 30 days.
- The Magistrate Judge dismissed the charges and released Wheeler on Oct. 25, 2010; the government appealed and the court stayed the ruling.
- The Court must decide whether time during which a pretrial motion is pending is excluded from the Speedy Trial Act clock.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the government's motion was a pretrial motion under §3161(h)(1)(D). | Wheeler argues it was a notice, not a motion. | Wheeler contests classification as a ‘pretrial motion’ per statute. | Yes, it was a pretrial motion. |
| Whether the disposition of the motion was 'prompt' under §3161(h)(1)(D). | Delay was not promptly resolved within seven days. | Delay of at least fourteen days attributable to court time is permissible; prompt disposition exists. | There was prompt disposition. |
| Whether the time during which the motions were pending should be excluded from the Speedy Trial Act clock in calculating indictment deadlines. | Excluded time should apply only to one motion. | All pending motion periods should be excluded. | Excludes time for both motions; indictment timely. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Harris, 491 F.3d 440 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (distinguishes 'notice' from 'motion' under pretrial timing)
- United States v. Bryant, 523 F.3d 349 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (defines 'pretrial motion' and timing rules under §3161(h))
- Henderson v. United States, 476 U.S. 321 (U.S. Supreme Court, 1986) (tolled time framework for non-hearing motions)
- United States v. Wilson, 835 F.2d 1440 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (pretrial motion timing framework (abrogated on other grounds))
- United States v. Fonseca, 435 F.3d 369 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (timing calculation for excluded periods under STA)