Criminal Procedure — speedy trials

Listen to this article

United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit

Criminal

Criminal Procedure — speedy trials

A trial court granting a continuance is not required to give a contemporaneous finding that the requirements of the Speedy Trial Act are met.

“Zedner certainly supports his claim that the court must balance the factors at the time it grants the continuance; but Zedner does not go so far as to say this balancing must be memorialized at that time. It recognizes that ‘[t]he best practice, of course, is for a district court to put its findings on the record at or near the time when it grants the continuance.’ 547 U.S. at 507 n.7. Although this is undoubtedly the ‘best practice,’ it is not the only permissible practice. Zedner and its progeny support our interpretation that a court’s ends-of-justice findings need not be articulated contemporaneously on the record. See Hills, 618 F.3d at 628 (court need not articulate its findings contemporaneously with exclusion of time).”

Affirmed.

10-2577 U.S. v. Wasson

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois, McCuskey, J., Rovner, J.