ADVERTISEMENTS

U.S. v. Mendoza, No. 06-50447 (5-8-08). This is a new opinion relating to a dismissal for a Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation (eight year delay between the indictment and arrest). The original opinion was withdrawn and this one issued. The 9th (T. Nelson joined by Paez and a concurrence by Bybee) find that the defendant was living openly in the Philippines, and that the government had plenty of information and leads to inform him that he was facing charges. The defendant did not know that he was facing these tax evasion charges. Under Barker, his constitutional speedy trial rights were violated. Bybee concurs because of precedent, but he is troubled that a defendant can supposedly run but since he didn't hide, assert speedy trial.

U.S. v. Pete, No. 06-10390 (5-8-08). In an appeal alleging a Speedy Trial violation (the 9th has been deciding a number of them recently it seems), the 9th concludes that the time between a motion to recall a mandate through the Supremes' denial of cert is all excludable. Here, the defendant had indicated that he intended to file cert in his motion to recall the mandate, and so he is taken at his word until he disclaims his intent.

Bloggers, promote your law blog by nominating your blog for inclusion in USLaw.com's Law Blog Directory and RSS Reader. Benefits described.