United States v. Eric B.

On September 7,1994, Eric B., who at the time was twelve-years-old, killed a seven-year-old child on a Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona. The cause of death was a single bullet to the head. Eric B. was tried and adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. The court found that Eric B. had committed an act of involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112 .

Erie B. now appeals claiming a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (Act), under 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . In addition, Eric B. asks us to find that the district court erred by (1) denying his motion for judgment of acquittal; (2) failing to find the United States Attorney impermissibly obtained a grand jury subpoena; and (3) failing to find that Eric B.’s privacy right provided for under, inter alia, 18 U.S.C. § 5038 was violated.

We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , based on the entry of final judgment by the district court on December 12, 1994. Having considered the pleadings and argument before this Court, we affirm the district court’s decision.

I.

FACTS

On the afternoon of September 7, 1994, Eric B., then twelve-years-old, received a gun from a friend at school. Eric B. was aware that two bullets were in the weapon…

concurring:

I concur in the result reached by the majority on all substantive issues, and agree that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed. I write separately, however, because I see no need to discuss “excludable time” or the defendant’s implicit consent to exceeding the thirty-day statutory limit. As we are agreed that the trial was within the time allowed by the statute, discussion of excludable time and consent have nothing to do with the outcome and are, therefore, mere dicta.

Even if the issue of speedy trial depended on our consideration of implied consent, I see no basis for criticism of defense counsel. No one suggests that she made any false statements to the court or anyone else. When October 14 was set as the trial date, she had a pending appeal of the magistrate judge’s denial of her motion for release from custody. If she had been successful on the appeal, the speedy trial issue would have gone away. The court asked, “Do you expect to go to trial within the thirty days’ time?” She answered, “If he’s in custody, yes, I would.”

On the morning of trial counsel moved to dismiss for violation of the Speedy Trial Act. She argued that under United States…

86 F.3d 869 96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3812 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. ERIC B., Defendant-Appellant. No. 94-10588. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Nov. 13, 1995. Decided May 30, 1996. Celia Rumann, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Phoenix, Arizona, for defendant-appellant. Vincent Q. Kirby, Assistant United States Attorney, Phoenix, Arizona, for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona; Earl H. Carroll, District Judge, Presiding, No. CR-94-286-EHC. Before: WIGGINS and LEAVY, Circuit Judges, and MANUEL L. REAL, * District Judge. MANUEL L. REAL, District Judge: On September 7, 1994, Eric B., who at the time was twelve-years-old, killed a seven-year-old child on a Navajo Indian Reservation in Arizona. The cause of death was a single bullet to the head. Eric B. was tried and adjudicated a juvenile delinquent. The court found that Eric B. had committed an act of involuntary manslaughter under 18 U.S.C. § 1112 . Eric B. now appeals claiming a violation of the Speedy Trial Act (Act), under 18 U.S.C. § 5036 . In addition, Eric B. asks us to find that the district court…