October Term 2010 · Docket 09-1498
Does the Speedy Trial Act exclude time for pretrial motions?
The dispute centers on whether specific pretrial motions pause the statutory deadline for starting a criminal trial.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Roberts argued the Act contains automatic exclusions for pretrial proceedings.
Justice Sotomayor questioned the benefit to defendants with violated rights.
Justice Alito asked if deciding on subsection F makes subsection D dictum.
Justice Ginsburg asked if Congress expected judges to set dates after motions.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-47
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests the Speedy Trial Act. It asks if certain pretrial motions stop the clock. The government argues these motions pause the deadline. The defendant argues the deadline continues running.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on February 22, 2011.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
What each side wants
The government wants the Court to exclude pretrial motion time from the deadline.
The defendant wants the Court to include that time in the deadline calculation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
What each side says
The government argues the Act automatically excludes time for important pretrial proceedings.
The defendant argues the statutory text does not support excluding this specific time.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
What the justices asked
Justice Sotomayor asked how excluding time helps a defendant with violated rights.
Justice Kennedy asked if the system has been working fine so far.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-47
Why it matters
This case defines how courts calculate trial deadlines. It affects every criminal defendant facing pretrial motions. It clarifies the scope of the Speedy Trial Act. It shapes how judges manage court calendars.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 35-37 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 35-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 47-9 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 47-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 5-7 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 5-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 35-51 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 35-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-31 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 13-19 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 13-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 29-37 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 29-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 51-17 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 51-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 39-47 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 39-47
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 25, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 25, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-11 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-11
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.