18 U.S.C. § 5036
Speedy trial
If an alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial is not brought to trial within thirty days from the date upon which such detention was begun, the information shall be dismissed on motion of the alleged delinquent or at the direction of the court, unless the Attorney General shows that additional delay was caused by the juvenile or his counsel, or consented to by the juvenile and his counsel, or would be in the interest of justice in the particular case. Delays attributable solely to court calendar congestion may not be considered in the interest of justice. Except in extraordinary circumstances, an information dismissed under this section may not be reinstituted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 55
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1975–2023 · leading case: United States v. Juv. Male, 595 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2010).
United States v. Juv. Male, 595 F.3d 885 (9th Cir. 2010). “challenges the timeliness of his trial under the speedy trial provision of the JDA, 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . We therefore lay out the course of the district court proceedings in some detail.”
United States v. Female Juv., A.F.S., 377 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2004). “to trial within the thirty-day period set forth in the speedy trial provision of the FJDA, 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . We hold that the district court erred in dismissing the information for lack of jurisdiction.”
United States v. John Doe, 149 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 1998). “Before trial, Appellant moved to dismiss the government’s information claiming it violated (1) his due process rights because of preaccusation delay, and (2) his speedy trial rights pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . Appellant claimed he was prejudiced by the government’s delay…”
United States v. Juv. Male, 528 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2008). “challenges the timeliness of his trial under the speedy trial provision of the *1150 JDA, 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . We therefore lay out the course of the district court proceedings in some detail.”
United States v. D. B., 61 F.4th 608 (8th Cir. 2023). “appeals, arguing that his federal juvenile delinquency proceedings should have been dismissed because he was not afforded a speedy trial as required by the Federal Juvenile Delinquency Act (FJDA), 18 U.S.C. § 5036 , and that his sentence is unreasonable.”
United States v. Stanley Lilly Romulus, A/K/A Frank Phillips, 949 F.2d 713 (4th Cir. 1991). “Romulus next contends that his prosecution was barred by 18 U.S.C.A. § 5036 (West 1985). This section states: If an alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial is not brought to trial within thirty days from the date upon which such detention was begun, the information…”
United States v. John Doe, 49 F.3d 859 (2d Cir. 1995). “dismiss the information on the additional ground that, because the delay between his October 18 arraignment and the December 24 filing of the juvenile information exceeded 30 days, his right to a speedy trial under 18 U.S.C. § 5036 had been violated. A hearing on the…”
United States v. John Doe, a Juv., 366 F.3d 1069 (9th Cir. 2004). “The primary question for decision is whether the district court should have dismissed the information for violation of the special speedy trial provision of the Delinquency Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . The answer depends on the date on which the 30-day clock of § 5036 began to run.”
United States v. A.R., 203 F.3d 955 (6th Cir. 2000). “Title 18 U.S.C. § 5036 , which A.R. claims has also been violated, provides a “speedy trial” component to delinquency adjudications: If an alleged delinquent who is in detention pending trial is not brought to trial within thirty days from the date upon which such detention was…”
United States v. Under Seal, 853 F.3d 706 (4th Cir. 2017). “We also hold that this Court lacks jurisdiction over Appellant’s appeal of the denial of his motion to have the information dismissed with prejudice on the basis of an alleged violation of his speedy trial rights under 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . Appellant’s appeal of the above-described…”
United States v. Eric B., 86 F.3d 869 (9th Cir. 1996). “now appeals claiming a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (Act), under 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . In addition, Eric B. asks us to find that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) failing to find the United States Attorney impermissibly obtained…”
United States v. Dennis Garland Andy, 549 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1977). “PER CURIAM: This is an appeal from the district court’s denial of appellant Andy’s motion to dismiss for failure to meet the speedy trial standard of 18 U.S.C. § 5036 , as amended, and from the court’s adjudication of appellant as a juvenile delinquent for an assault with a…”
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.