Sara Jane Moore, Defendant-Petitioner v. United States District Court, Northern District of California

Ninth Circuit

Sara Jane Moore, Defendant-Petitioner v. United States District Court, Northern District of California

525 F.2d 328, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11967

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedNovember 12, 1975

Docket75--3384

StatusPublished

Cited by8 cases

This text of 525 F.2d 328 (Sara Jane Moore, Defendant-Petitioner v. United States District Court, Northern District of California) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sara Jane Moore, Defendant-Petitioner v. United States District Court, Northern District of California, 525 F.2d 328, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11967 (9th Cir. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN and SNEED, Circuit Judges.

Defendant has petitioned for a writ of mandamus to set aside certain pretrial proceedings, including her arraignment. We find in the petition no showing of an abuse of discretion with reference to the challenged proceedings.

We note, however, that the district court is faced with a serious problem of statutory time limits.

A detained defendant must be brought to trial within the time limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b) if the defendant falls within subsection 18 U.S.C. § 3164(a)(1). However, a district judge may, upon a finding that the demands of due process so require, exclude both (1) the period during which a defendant is detained for a study of his mental competency pursuant to a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 and (2) the time consumed by court hearings on the defendant’s competency, from the ninety (90) day period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b). Upon such a finding, a detained defendant is not a defendant detained solely because he is awaiting trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3164(a)(1) during the time he is committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 for a study to determine his mental competency or during the time consumed by court hearings on his mental competency.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Before WRIGHT, GOODWIN and SNEED, Circuit Judges.

Defendant has petitioned for a writ of mandamus to set aside certain pretrial proceedings, including her arraignment. We find in the petition no showing of an abuse of discretion with reference to the challenged proceedings.

We note, however, that the district court is faced with a serious problem of statutory time limits.

A detained defendant must be brought to trial within the time limited by 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b) if the defendant falls within subsection 18 U.S.C. § 3164(a)(1). However, a district judge may, upon a finding that the demands of due process so require, exclude both (1) the period during which a defendant is detained for a study of his mental competency pursuant to a court order under 18 U.S.C. § 4244 and (2) the time consumed by court hearings on the defendant’s competency, from the ninety (90) day period set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3164(b). Upon such a finding, a detained defendant is not a defendant detained solely because he is awaiting trial under 18 U.S.C. § 3164(a)(1) during the time he is committed pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4244 for a study to determine his mental competency or during the time consumed by court hearings on his mental competency.

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

525 F.2d 328, 1975 U.S. App. LEXIS 11967, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sara-jane-moore-defendant-petitioner-v-united-states-district-court-ca9-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack