Speedy trial provision of the juvenile delinquency act

After Doe was adjudicated to be a delinquent, the district court held a dispositional hearing. The only presentation of Doe's juvenile record in the district court record was in the predisposition report, which was delivered to the court prior to the dispositional hearing.

That report recited that the tribal justice center "currently is not releasing juvenile records. Defense counsel did not object to any of these recitals in the predisposition report and did not contest or question their factual accuracy. The district court sentenced Doe at the conclusion of the hearing. A juvenile shall not be transferred to adult prosecution nor shall a hearing be held under section disposition after a finding of juvenile delinquency until any prior juvenile court records of such juvenile have been received by the court, or the clerk of the juvenile court has certified in writing that the juvenile has no prior record, or that the juvenile's record is unavailable and why it is unavailable.

The record does not indicate compliance with these requirements. The district court does not appear to have received Doe's actual juvenile records, and there is no certificate from the clerk of the tribal juvenile court regarding Doe's records.

United States v. Doe , 13 F. The question for our decision concerns the consequences of this omission. The Third Circuit has also adopted this view, at least with regard to transfer to adult prosecution. See Impounded Juvenile I. If we adhere to this approach, then the district court's disposition was void and will have to be vacated because a district court's error in proceeding without jurisdiction can never be harmless. See Juvenile Male , F. We conclude, however, that these prior decisions are in error to the extent that they regard the juvenile record certification requirement to be jurisdictional.

It is true that receipt of a record or certificate concerning the record is unequivocally required before a hearing is held, but this command is no different from a number of other requirements that govern proceedings in the district courts.

To convert such commands into jurisdictional imperatives creates an unworkable inflexibility and leads to unnecessary reversals on matters that were of no concern to the parties during the district court proceeding or even on appeal. Indeed, some circuits that have characterized the record certification requirement as jurisdictional have responded to this problem by interpreting the requirement flexibly, so that the district court retains jurisdiction even when the statute is not strictly complied with.

See Wong , 40 F. Parker , F. Even more to the point, the Supreme Court has counseled against construing mandatory requirements concerning the conduct of a proceeding as "jurisdictional. Ryan , U. The Court conceded that " [c]ourts, including this Court The Court regarded this tendency as erroneous, however.

Cotton , U. The Supreme Court's rationale in Kontrick is readily applicable here. There is no question that, once the requisite certification of need for federal proceedings established initial jurisdiction, the federal district court had subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate delinquency or to transfer for adult prosecution.

There is also no question that it had personal jurisdiction over Doe. The requirement that the district court receive Doe's juvenile records or a certificate concerning the records went to the conduct of the proceeding, not the court's subject-matter jurisdiction to proceed or its personal jurisdiction over Doe.

Indeed, if the record certification requirement is to be interpreted as truly "jurisdictional," then the district court lost jurisdiction over a proceeding in which it admittedly had jurisdiction through the adjudication of delinquency. Such a loss of jurisdiction not arising from a lack of power over the subject matter or over the person is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's reasoning in Kontrick.

If Doe had objected, he would have been entitled to insist on full compliance in the district court. There was no objection, however, and we accordingly proceed to determine whether reversal is required on the ground of plain error. See Fed. Olano , U. Atkinson , U. Even if the district court here committed error that was plain, reversal is not required because the error neither affected Doe's substantial rights nor seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.

Although there was no formal certification from the tribal juvenile court in the record, the predisposition report stated that the juvenile court was not releasing records, but that the information concerning Doe's history of delinquency had been obtained from a Pretrial Services report. There is no hint in the record that this source was not reliable or that the information was not correct.

Doe stated at the dispositional hearing that his attorney had discussed the predisposition report with him, but neither Doe nor his attorney suggested that there were any inaccuracies in the report. Indeed, they have suggested no such inaccuracies on appeal. We therefore decline to reverse on the ground of plain error. To the extent that it holds otherwise, this court's decision in United States v. To the extent that they rule to the contrary, our decisions in United States v.

Male Juvenile , F. The parties also do not dispute that the Attorney General has delegated certification authority to United States Attorneys.

Juvenile Male Kenneth C. Section sets out exceptions to the thirty-day rule for delays caused or consented to by the juvenile or his counsel, or delays that are in the interest of justice in the particular case, but there is no contention that any of these exceptions applied at the time Doe made his motion to dismiss. This issue first arose just prior to oral argument in the en banc rehearing.

We ordered and received supplemental briefing on the subject. The only objection by defense counsel was to the consideration of any offenses not listed in the predisposition report. The Speedy Trial Act is inapplicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings, which have their own speedy trial provision.

See 18 U. Furthermore, the Interstate Agreement on Detainers IAD provides its own time limits for persons incarcerated in other jurisdictions. The legislative history is found in S. News ; S. Code Cong. News These reports are contained in a one-volume legislative history of the Act, prepared by the Federal Judicial Center, which was previously distributed to all United States Attorneys' Offices.

A good overview of the Speedy Trial Act including cases interpreting the Act , and of a defendant's constitutional speedy trial rights in general, is provided in Twenty-Fifth Annual Review of Criminal Procedure , 84 Georgetown Law Journal April Additionally, the Appellate Section of the Criminal Division is available for assistance in interpreting the Act.

A defendant's right to a speedy trial has constitutional and statutory underpinnings in addition to the Speedy Trial Act. Federal statutes of limitations provide a time frame within which charges must be filed. Moreover, Rule 48, Fed. See Rule 48 b , Fed.

Even if a charge is brought within the period provided by the statute of limitations, a defendant may be able to show that preaccusation delay has violated his Fifth Amendment due process rights.

To obtain a dismissal of the charges by reason of pre-indictment delay, a defendant has the burden of establishing that the government engaged in intentional delay to gain a tactical advantage, and that he suffered actual prejudice. United States v. Lovasco , U. Marion , U. A defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Clause of the Sixth Amendment are triggered by "either a formal indictment or information or else the actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge.

MacDonald , U. Failure of the accused to move for dismissal prior to trial or entry of a plea of guilty shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal under this section. The authority to punish provided for by this section shall be in addition to any other authority or power available to the court.

The court shall follow the procedures established in the Rules of Court in punishing any counsel or public prosecutor pursuant to this section. Rules and Regulations. The rules, regulations, administrative orders and circulars formulated shall provide sanctions against justices and judges who willfully fail to proceed to trial without justification consistent with the provisions of this Act.

Thereafter, such additional amounts as may be necessary for its continued implementation shall be included in the annual General Appropriations Act. Repealing Clause. Separability Clause. This Act, which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. Approved, Sgd. Speaker of the House of Representatives Sgd.