18 U.S.C. § 3168

Planning process

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

(a) Within sixty days after July 1, 1975, each United States district court shall convene a planning group consisting at minimum of the Chief Judge, a United States magistrate judge, if any designated by the Chief Judge, the United States Attorney, the Clerk of the district court, the Federal Public Defender, if any, two private attorneys, one with substantial experience in the defense of criminal cases in the district and one with substantial experience in civil litigation in the district, the Chief United States Probation Officer for the district, and a person skilled in criminal justice research who shall act as reporter for the group. The group shall advise the district court with respect to the formulation of all district plans and shall submit its recommendations to the district court for each of the district plans required by section 3165. The group shall be responsible for the initial formulation of all district plans and of the reports required by this chapter and in aid thereof, it shall be entitled to the planning funds specified in section 3171.(b) The planning group shall address itself to the need for reforms in the criminal justice system, including but not limited to changes in the grand jury system, the finality of criminal judgments, habeas corpus and collateral attacks, pretrial diversion, pretrial detention, excessive reach of Federal criminal law, simplification and improvement of pretrial and sentencing procedures, and appellate delay.(c) Members of the planning group with the exception of the reporter shall receive no additional compensation for their services, but shall be reimbursed for travel, subsistence and other necessary expenses incurred by them in carrying out the duties of the advisory group in accordance with the provisions of title 5, United States Code, chapter 57. The reporter shall be compensated in accordance with section 3109 of title 5, United States Code, and notwithstanding other provisions of law he may be employed for any period of time during which his services are needed.(Added Pub. L. 93–619, title I, § 101, Jan. 3, 1975, 88 Stat. 2083; amended Pub. L. 96–43, § 9(d), Aug. 2, 1979, 93 Stat. 330; Pub. L. 101–650, title III, § 321, Dec. 1, 1990, 104 Stat. 5117.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1979—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 96–43 substituted “two private attorneys, one with substantial experience in the defense of criminal cases in the district and one with substantial experience in civil litigation in the district” for “a private attorney experienced in the defense of criminal cases in the district”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesChange of Name

“United States magistrate judge” substituted for “United States magistrate” in subsec. (a) pursuant to section 321 of Pub. L. 101–650, set out as a note under section 631 of Title 28, Judiciary and Judicial Procedure.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 1982–1992 · leading case: Government of the Virgin Islands v. Quetel

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Quetel (1982) virginislands “Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3168 and § 3169, the District Court’s Plan was formulated after consultation with and after considering the recommendations of the Federal Judicial Center and the Planning Group for that District.”

Medina v. Clark (1992) tnwd “Suffice it to say that there was substantial room for dispute under 18 U.S.C. § 3168 as to what type of pretrial liberty restrictions constituted “custody” and those disputes resulted in much litigation over sentence credits.”

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.