The Supreme Court, yesterday in Bloate v. United States ruled that time used to prepare motions in Federal cases is not automatically excluded from the 70 day period under the Speedy Trial Act in which a case must be brought to trial. Rather under 18 USC 3161 (h)(1) the time may be excluded only if the District Court Judge makes a finding pursuant to 18 USC 3161 (h)(8A) “that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.”

James Bloate was indicted on August 24, 2006 for being a felon in possession of a firearm initiating the 70 day speedy trial period. The Judge ordered that pretrial motions be filed by September 13. On September 7, the defendant moved to continue the due date for motions until September 21 and the Court granted the motion. On September 25 the defendant filed a waiver of pretrial motions and the Court held a hearing on October 4 where it found the waiver “voluntary and intelligent.”

The question in this appeal is whether the period during which the defendant considered whether or not to file motions is excluded from the 70 day speedy trial period.

18 USC 3161(h)(1)(F) automatically excludes “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.” The court found that this language automatically excludes the time from the filing of the motion to the time that that the hearing on the motion is completed. It reasons that if Congress wanted to also include time during which motions were prepared if would have so stated. Of course this does not prevent the District Court from making finding pursuant to 3161 (h)(8A) excluding preparatory time from the 70 day period.

The dissent argues that it is unfair to allow the defendant to benefit from a judge’s decision granting him more time to file motions when the defendant requested the time. However, as the majority points out the specific language of 18 USC 3161(h)(1)(F) takes priority over the more general language found in 18 USC 3161(h)(1)(A) which excludes “delay resulting from any proceeding, including any examinations, to determine the mental competency or physical capacity of the defendant.”

A better solution, in order to prevent the defendant receiving a windfall as a result of his or her own motion to continue the proceedings would be to amend the statute to exclude any time that proceedings are continued as a result of a defendant’s motion.