United States v. Melvin Taplet, Jr.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that “a delay of more than two years is ‘presumptively prejudicial’” (citing Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651–52 & n.1)
• holding that use of a cell phone “was sufficient evidence to show that Taplet used a facility of interstate commerce with the intent to commit a murder-for-hire.”
• rejecting speedy-trial claim where defendant “failed to offer a concrete explanation on how the delays prejudiced his defense”
• “Not all motions filed pretrial count as a ‘pretrial motion’ under the [Speedy Trial Act],” including “government evidentiary filings that invoke Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 609[.]”
• “[D]efendants waive a period of non-excludable time if they fail to raise it in their motion to dismiss or fail to renew their [Speedy Trial Act] claims prior to trial.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).