United States v. Stuart R. Crane

How courts have described this case

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

• vacating conviction based on speedy-trial violation when voir dire occurred within the time period, but the rest of trial was delayed for two weeks
• expressing concern that the STA “tempts defense counsel to ‘sandbag’ the trial judge by claiming to be ready for trial . . . while not taking the steps necessary on counsel’s part to help the case move toward trial”
• noting that before discovering that the 70-day limit would not expire until June 22, 1984, the district court set trial for July 5,1984; after the court learned of the June 22 deadline, the court ordered a magistrate judge to commence voir dire on June 21, and then take a recess until July 5
• noting that before discovering that the 70-day limit would not expire until June 22, 1984, the district court set trial for July 5, 1984; after the court learned of the June 22 deadline, the court ordered a magistrate judge to commence voir dire on June 21, and then take a recess until July 5
• no evidence of “sandbagging” in the record

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).