United States v. Maurice H. Rosenbloom

511 F.2d 777, 167 U.S. App. D.C. 211
CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
DecidedApril 1, 1975
Docket73--2231
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 511 F.2d 777 (United States v. Maurice H. Rosenbloom) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Maurice H. Rosenbloom, 511 F.2d 777, 167 U.S. App. D.C. 211 (D.C. Cir. 1975).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

The claim of speedy trial denied has been given careful consideration, especially in view of the long time involved. But the case calls for a balancing of factors as appears from Barker v. Win-go, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). We are of the view that no significant delay was attributable to negligence or fault on the part of the prosecution, that most of the delay was attributable to the Government’s successful interlocutory appeal of a motion to suppress evidence; that there was neither detention nor release on bail, but rather on recognizance; that the defendant’s irrational actions contributed materially to the delay in setting of a trial date; that there was no prejudice to the conduct of the defense; and that after the motion to suppress was resolved by an authoritative ruling of this court, there was a further delay of only 4 — 5 months prior to the date set by the judge, with the consent of counsel, for the trial. We do not believe that the possible stress on appellant attributable to the pendency of the charges involved in this ease weighs heavily enough to swing the balance of factors toward a [778]*778dismissal of the indictment for denial of speedy trial.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Reed v. United States
383 A.2d 316 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1978)
United States v. Maurice H. Rosenbloom
511 F.2d 777 (D.C. Circuit, 1975)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
511 F.2d 777, 167 U.S. App. D.C. 211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-maurice-h-rosenbloom-cadc-1975.