Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
UNITED STATES of America v. Julius GREER a/k/a “Poony” Appellant
OPINION *
We previously affirmed Julius Greer's conviction and held that he was not entitled to relief even though his rights under the Speedy Trial Act were violated. After reviewing the record for plain error, we found “nothing in the record to suggest that the district court's erroneous decision to grant the government's moot continuance request affected the outcome of this case.”1
While Greer's petition for certiorari review of that decision was pending before the Supreme Court, we issued a precedential opinion in United States v. Reese.2 In Reese, we concluded that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act must result in dismissal of the indictment because “[t]he remedy provision of the Act leaves no room for a prejudice or harmless error analysis.”3 Accordingly, we granted Greer's subsequent petition to recall the mandate denying relief in this case and granted panel rehearing.
Our precedential decision in Reese now controls our review of Greer's appeal. Since we held in Reese that a violation of the Speedy Trial Act requires reversal, it is clear that Greer's conviction is not subject to plain error review. Accordingly, Greer's conviction must be vacated.
For the foregoing reasons, we will vacate Greer's conviction and remand for dismissal of the indictment.4
FOOTNOTES
1. United States v. Greer, 734 F. App'x 125, 128 (3d Cir. 2018) (concluding “we may reverse only if, inter alia, the error seriously affect[ed] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”) (internal quotations and citations omitted), judgment entered (Sept. 27, 2018), cert. denied, ––– U.S. ––––, 139 S. Ct. 2667, 204 L.Ed.2d 1073 (2019), reh'g granted, order vacated, 786 F. App'x 383 (3d Cir. 2019).
2. 917 F.3d 177 (3d Cir. 2019).
3. Id. at 184 (“As Justice Alito explained for a unanimous Supreme Court in Zedner[ v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 164 L.Ed.2d 749 (2006)], [t]he relevant provisions of the Act are unequivocal․ When a trial is not commenced within the prescribed period of time, the information or indictment shall be dismissed.”) (emphasis in original) (internal quotations omitted).
4. On remand, the district court “needs to decide in the first instance whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice per the factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2).” Id.
McKEE, Circuit Judge
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 17-1996
Decided: January 07, 2021
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)