18 U.S.C. § 3060

Preliminary examination

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise provided by this section, a preliminary examination shall be held within the time set by the judge or magistrate judge pursuant to subsection (b) of this section, to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the arrested person has committed it.(b) The date for the preliminary examination shall be fixed by the judge or magistrate judge at the initial appearance of the arrested person. Except as provided by subsection (c) of this section, or unless the arrested person waives the preliminary examination, such examination shall be held within a reasonable time following initial appearance, but in any event not later than—(1) the fourteenth day following the date of the initial appearance of the arrested person before such officer if the arrested person is held in custody without any provision for release, or is held in custody for failure to meet the conditions of release imposed, or is released from custody only during specified hours of the day; or(2) the twentieth day following the date of the initial appearance if the arrested person is released from custody under any condition other than a condition described in paragraph (1) of this subsection.(c) With the consent of the arrested person, the date fixed by the judge or magistrate judge for the preliminary examination may be a date later than that prescribed by subsection (b), or may be continued one or more times to a date subsequent to the date initially fixed therefor. In the absence of such consent of the accused, the judge or magistrate judge may extend the time limits only on a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.(d) Except as provided by subsection (e) of this section, an arrested person who has not been accorded the preliminary examination required by subsection (a) within the period of time fixed by the judge or magistrate judge in compliance with subsections (b) and (c), shall be discharged from custody or from the requirement of bail or any other condition of release, without prejudice, however, to the institution of further criminal proceedings against him upon the charge upon which he was arrested.(e) No preliminary examination in compliance with subsection (a) of this section shall be required to be accorded an arrested person, nor shall such arrested person be discharged from custody or from the requirement of bail or any other condition of release pursuant to subsection (d), if at any time subsequent to the initial appearance of such person before a judge or magistrate judge and prior to the date fixed for the preliminary examination pursuant to subsections (b) and (c) an indictment is returned or, in appropriate cases, an information is filed against such person in a court of the United States.(f) Proceedings before United States magistrate judges under this section shall be taken down by a court reporter or recorded by suitable sound recording equipment. A copy of the record of such proceeding shall be made available at the expense of the United States to a person who makes affidavit that he is unable to pay or give security therefor, and the expense of such copy shall be paid by the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.(June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 819; Pub. L. 90–578, title III, § 303(a), Oct. 17, 1968, 82 Stat. 1117; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117; Pub. L. 109–162, title XI, § 1179, Jan. 5, 2006, 119 Stat. 3126; Pub. L. 111–16, § 3(9), May 7, 2009, 123 Stat. 1608.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2009—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 111–16 substituted “fourteenth day” for “tenth day”.

2006—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 109–162 substituted “In the absence of such consent of the accused, the judge or magistrate judge may extend the time limits only on a showing that extraordinary circumstances exist and justice requires the delay.” for “In the absence of such consent of the accused, the date fixed for the preliminary hearing may be a date later than that prescribed by subsection (b), or may be continued to a date subsequent to the date initially fixed therefor, only upon the order of a judge of the appropriate United States district court after a finding that extraordinary circumstances exist, and that the delay of the preliminary hearing is indispensable to the interests of justice.”

1968—Pub. L. 90–578 substituted provisions of subsecs. (a) to (f) of this section detailing preliminary examination content for prior provisions which directed attention to the rule in section catchline, and directed one to see Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including “Proceedings before commissioner, appearance, advice as to right to counsel, hearing, Rule 5.”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

Words “magistrate judge” and “United States magistrate judges” substituted for “magistrate” and “United States magistrates”, respectively, wherever appearing in text pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Effective Date of 2009 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 111–16 effective Dec. 1, 2009, see section 7 of Pub. L. 111–16, set out as a note under section 109 of Title 11, Bankruptcy.

Effective Date of 1968 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 90–578 effective Oct. 17, 1968, except when a later effective date is applicable, which is the earlier of date when implementation of amendment by appointment of magistrates [now United States magistrate judges] and assumption of office takes place or third anniversary of enactment of Pub. L. 90–578 on Oct. 17, 1968, see section 403 of Pub. L. 90–578, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 66 cases (9 in the last 5 years), 1969–2026 · leading case: Lawrence D. Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, United States Magistrate for the Dist. of Columbia, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1973).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Lawrence D. Coleman v. The Honorable Arthur L. Burnett, United States Magistrate for the Dist. of Columbia, 477 F.2d 1187 (D.C. Cir. 1973). · cites it 9× “1107 , 1117 (1968), 18 U.S.C. § 3060 (1970), which implemented former Rule 5(c) and now Rule 5.”

Ennis Nettles v. Louie L. Wainwright, Dir., Div. of Corr., State of Florida, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). · cites it 2× “18 U.S.C. § 3060 (f) (probable cause for detention hearings) (“shall be taken down by a court reporter or recorded by suitable sound recording equipment”); 18 U.”

United States v. Aranda-Hernandez, 95 F.3d 977 (10th Cir. 1996). · cites it 6× “Aranda further alleges that in this district the United States has adopted the practice of charging by information then subsequent indictment, rather than by complaint, in order to subvert defendants’ right to a preliminary examination, as provided for by 18 U.S.C. § 3060 and…”

United States v. Soriano-Jarquin, 492 F.3d 495 (4th Cir. 2007). · cites it 2× “The defendant’s contention that he should be discharged pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3060 (d) also lacks merit. The defendant relies on § 3060(d)'s provision that an arrested person who has not received a preliminary hearing in the requisite time, except as otherwise provided, shall…”

Adams v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 278 (1972). · cites it 2× “, 33, on amending 18 U. S. C. § 3060 . Counsel must also avail himself of alternative procedures, always a significant factor to be weighed in the scales.”

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elec. Co., 888 F. Supp. 2d 976 (N.D. Cal. 2012). “§ 636 (b)(1)(A): [A] judge may designate a magistrate judge to hear and determine any pretrial matter pending before the court, except a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment, to dismiss or quash an indictment or information made by…”

United States v. Ronald Anthony Milano, 443 F.2d 1022 (10th Cir. 1971). · cites it 4× “It does not appear in the record before us whether the first continuance, issued over defendant’s objection, was an order of a judge of the district court made after the appropriate findings required by 18 U.S.C. § 3060 (c). But even if this were not the case, there would be no…”

Waugh v. State, 564 S.W.2d 654 (Tenn. 1978). · cites it 2× “The Congress has decided that a preliminary examination shall not be required when there is a grand jury indictment ( 18 U.S.C. § 3060 ). Increasing the procedural and evidentiary requirements applicable to the preliminary examination will therefore add to the administrative…”

United States v. Ronald R. Carpenter, 510 F.2d 738 (D.C. Cir. 1975). · cites it 5× “Green, should have been dismissed because a transcript of the preliminary hearing testimony of the government’s principal witness was unavailable, to the defendant at trial, due to the inadvertent recording-over of a tape made of the preliminary hearing pursuant to the United…”

Craig John Maisonville, & James M. Dombroski v. F2 Am., Inc. F2 Int'l, Inc., 902 F.2d 746 (9th Cir. 1990). “§§ 604 , 631-639 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 3060 , 3401-3402 and implemented by Fed.”

United States v. Joaquin Augusto Diaz & Jose Guillermo Guapacha, 922 F.2d 998 (2d Cir. 1990). “1117 (1968) (codified as amended at 18 U.S.C. § 3060 (1988)). At such a preliminary examination, which is generally required in a case where no indictment or information has been filed, the magistrate determines whether there is probable cause to believe the accused has…”

United States v. Lavell W. Taylor, 465 F.2d 1199 (10th Cir. 1972). · cites it 9× “In the trial court, as here, some emphasis is placed on the fact that a preliminary examination was not held before the Commissioner within the time requirement of 18 U.S.C. § 3060 (b) and (c). It is apparently agreed that no preliminary examination was ever held before the…”

Show all 66 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.