[Cboldt]

Criminal Resource Manual 628 Speedy Trial Act of 1974

B. The Speedy Trial Act is inapplicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings, which have their own speedy trial provision. See 18 U.S.C. § 5036 (speedy trial provision of the Juvenile Delinquency Act).

Still, this section of the CRM is interesting for how it handles pre-charge detention.

The information or indictment must be filed within 30 days from the date of arrest or service of the summons. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b). Trial must commence within 70 days from the date the information or indictment was filed, or from the date the defendant appears before an officer of the court in which the charge is pending, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1).

Another point I've bumped into in research has to do with the notion of joint jurisdiction, where an offense of both a state and a federal offense. The Feds are required to "certify" that they should take the defendant, over the state.

Criminal Resource Manual 41 - Certification

In cases of concurrent jurisdiction, the appropriate local prosecutor should be briefed on the facts of the case, and a determination made as to whether he/she is accepting or refusing prosecutorial responsibilities in the matter. If a local prosecutor refuses to assume jurisdiction over the juvenile, federal prosecutors may wish to consider whether it would be helpful to attach a confirming letter from the local prosecutor to the certification filed with the court.

There are certain crimes where the Feds easily get the case. 18 USC 844(e) is NOT enumerated as grounds for quick certification, see 18 USC 5032(3) for the list. This is a complex run of statutory prose, and it describes "certification" (feds take the case over the state) and "transfer" (try as an adult). The bias is for the prosecution to be handled by the state, but juvenile bomb hoax cases are commonly handled in federal courts.

CRM Section 9-8.000 - Juveniles

With the amount of publicity this case has obtained, the details of the detention, timing of filing of the information, outcome of the motion to "transfer" (try as an adult) and outcome of any motion to dismiss on failure to obtain a speedy trial are most likely going to come out.

I think my posts here capture all of the issues, albeit not in any decent summary form.

[normanpubbie]

Re your post #72:

There are similarities and differences between the Kernell and Lundeby cases. My point in citing Kernell was that both he and Lundeby are accused of using electronic means to commit a crime in a remote location.

Incidentally, your status on Kernell is not up to date. In March of this year, a new indictment was issued containing the original count plus three new ones. Because of the new charges, the judge postponed the beginning of Kernell's trial from this month to October. Here's a link.

I agree that Lundeby's case is potentially more serious than Kernell's, especially if the authorities have evidence of multiple criminal instances or multiple actors. If there were multiple instances or multiple actors it would take longer to conduct an investigation before the arrest.

The Wired article you cited in post #61 was written by Kevin Poulson. Poulson is the #2 most famous American hacker (his buddy Kevin Mitnick being #1). Poulson, convicted of several felonies, was sentenced to 51 months in Federal prison. When he got out, he started writing articles for an Internet computer security firm and is now a senior editor at Wired magazine. Is Poulson's reporting about Tyrone, Tyrone's customers, and Jason Bennett of Sydney, Australia plausible? Maybe. Stay tuned for the trial.

Mrs. Lundeby's untrue statements in the WRAL report of April 29 pretty much demolished her credibility but did not do any real damage to her son. But if she actually made the statements attributed to her by Poulson, she did enormous damage to her son's criminal case.

Thanks for all your research on related issues. I found it most informative and I'm sure others appreciate it too.