*1 893 Kentucky. McQueen Sup. Ky.; No. 84-5261. v. Ct. Mo.; No. 84-5265. Preston v. Missouri. Sup. Ct. Fla.; v. Sup. No. 84-5269. Jones Florida. Ct. and Briley Bass, No. 84-5505. Warden. C. A. 4th Cir. v. Reported 83-6704, 63, denied. No. Certiorari below: 138 Ariz. 83-7013, 329, P. No. 1; 680; 673 2d 35 Cal. 3d 673 P. 2d 83-7014, 137; 84-5200, No. 450 208; 667 S. W. 2d No. 2d So. 84-5206, 54, 206; 84-5261, No. 102 Ill. 2d N. E. 464 2d No. 669 519; 84-5265, 1; 84-5269, 2d No. 673 2d 449 S. W. S. W. No. 84-5505, F. 253; So. 2d No. 742 2d 155. Marshall, Brennan and Justice dissenting.
Justice views that the in Adhering penalty to our death is all circum- prohibited by stаnces cruel unusual the punishment Eighth and Amendments, Gregg Georgia, 153, and Fourteеnth v. 428 U. S. 227, (1976), 231 we grant would certiorari and vacate the death sentencеs in these cases. 83-6814.
No. Williford United States. C. A. 5th Cir. v. Certiorari denied. White, dissenting.
Justicе Phillip Petitioner was convicted of wire fraud in viola- Williford § tion 18 a making оf U. S. C. 1343 and of false statement in a loan § in violation of 18 1014. The appliсation original U. S. C. indict- him on charging May 4, ment was returned 1982. A superseding 17, 1982, indictment wаs filed on and a August superseding second 21, on 1983. April indictment was filed This final indictmеnt paragraph describing omitted one a fraudulent transaction con- predecessor. in its tained sought a of the scheduled trial date postponement
Petitioner 3161(c)(2). Act, § Trial 18 That Speedy pro- under the U. S. C. guarantees adequate prepare vision an time to a defense to the 30 by preventing days trial commencement until from the charge the appearance, defendant’s first unless defendant сonsents in 3161(c)(2) argued § to an earlier date. Petitioner that writing days commencement of his trial until 30 precluded elapsed follow- the last indiсtment. The District ing the return of dis- Court 3, 1983, petitioner’s began May and trial on 12 agrеed, only days the final indictment was returned. after defendant, on an indictmеnt is dismissed the motion of a When 3161(d)(1) § any 18 S. C. reindictment the same under U. for 894 *2 3161(c)(2). case, § In this of 30-day period
offensе renews the
conviction,
upheld petitioner’s
finding
however,
the Fifth Circuit
prior
the
indictment
is dismissed
applies
that a different rule
when
The minimum time limit
on the
the Government:
runs
motion of
indictment,
any
and
continu-
superseding,
from
not
оriginal,
the
judge.
holding
discretion of the district
This
ance is left to the
United Statеs
Circuit,
view of the
is consistent with the
Seventh
Circuit, United
Horton,
1165,
(1982),
F. 2d
1169
the Second
v.
676
Tоdisco,
States v.
255,
(1981),
F. 2d
260
and the
Cir-
Eighth
667
Dennis,
(1980).
States v.
United
782,
F.
793
It con-
cuit,
625
2d
United
In
however,
the rule in the Ninth Circuit.
flicts,
with
Harris,
States v.
the Ninth
held
(1984),
Section due having prepare of time to a defense without right аdequate allow- delay to their scheduled trials ing unduly. Rep. defendants S. (1979). 96-212, Nо. is p. among 32 There a direct conflict the command put Congress Circuits over how that will be into effect. the Trial Act to Speedy provide intended a uniform national rule delay. Yet, trial regarding scheduling and because of the con- of flicting interpretations Circuits, the various a dеfendant’s right to 30-day preparation period superseding a aftеr a indictment now depends almost as much on the of it happenstance geography as on the Legislative does will of the Branch. I the
Accordingly, dissent from denial of certiorari. No. 83-6832. Eddmonds Ct. Sup. Illinois. Ill. Certio v. denied. rari