Tenth Circuit Summaries

• Publication year: 2004
• Pages: 131

33 Colo.Law. 131 Colorado Lawyer 2004.

2004, March, Pg. 131. Tenth Circuit Summaries

---

131

Vol. 33, No. 3, Pg. 131

The Colorado Lawyer
March 2004
Vol. 33, No. 3 [Page 131]

From the Courts
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Tenth Circuit Summaries

Summaries of selected opinions appear on a space-available basis. The summaries are prepared for the Colorado Bar Association by Jenine Jensen and Catherine Campbell, licensed Colorado attorneys. The summaries of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit are provided as a service by the Colorado Bar Association and are not the official language of the Court. The Colorado Bar Association cannot guarantee the accuracy or completeness of the summaries.
Full copies of the Tenth Circuit decisions are available on the CBA website at http: //www.cobar.org/hotlinks.cfm (United States Courts link to the Tenth Circuit). Call The Colorado Lawyer Editorial Offices with questions: (303) 860-1118

Speedy Trial Act - Excludable Time - 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b) - Mental Competency Examinations

U.S. v. Taylor, No. 03-3036, 12/23/03, D.Kan., Judge Porfilio

The question on appeal is whether a period of delay for a determination of mental competency is nonexcludable under the Speedy Trial Act's ("Act") seventy-day clock The question is one of first impression. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment against him, holding that the Act does not provide a remedy for a violation of the time limitations for a mental competency examination of 18 U.S.C. § 4247(b). The Act requires that a criminal defendant's trial begin with seventy days of the filing of the indictment or defendant's appearance before a judicial officer. There are numerous exceptions to this limit, including any period of delay resulting from a proceeding to determine the defendant's mental competency. U.S.C. § 4247(b) contains time limitations for a mental examination, but no express remedy for exceeding those limitations. Defendant argues that Congress intended that the time limitations of § 4247(b) modify the Act, thereby triggering the Act's remedy for a violation.

Other Circuits have rejected this argument. The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals declines to hold that Congress wanted a violation of § 4247 to carry consequences under the Speedy Trial Act. The district court therefore correctly denied defendant's motion to dismiss his indictment.

Jurisdiction for Appellate Review of Pretrial Order Under Collateral Order Doctrine of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 - Disqualification of Entire U.S. Attorney's Office

U.S. v. Bolden, No. 02-6249, 12/24/03, W.D.Okla., Chief Judge Tacha.

The district court for the Western District of Oklahoma disqualified the entire office of the U.S. Attorney ("USA") from representing the government on defendant's motion to compel. The USA's office appealed the disqualification. The Tenth Circuit Court takes jurisdiction, pursuant to the collateral order doctrine under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and reverses. Defendant entered into a plea agreement that provided that the government would evaluate defendant's cooperation in deciding whether a motion for downward departure or reduction of sentence would be appropriate. The Assistant U.S. Attorney ("AUSA") notified defendant's counsel that the government would not seek a reduction of the sentence. Defendant moved to compel the government to move for reduction of his sentence alleging bad faith by the government. The district court eventually entered an order disqualifying the entire USA's office,...