Bloate vs. United States (2010)

Facts of the Case:
Taylor James Bloate was convicted in a Missouri federal district court on counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm and possessing cocaine with intent to distribute. In a pretrial motion, Mr. Bloate moved to dismiss arguing that there had been a Speedy Trial Act violation. It was denied. The Act requires that a defendant's trial begin within "70 days after the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever is later." However, it excludes "any period of delay resulting from other proceedings concerning the defendant." Following his conviction, Mr. Bloate appealed, arguing that his motion to dismiss was improperly denied as the court excluded too many days in its calculation.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed Mr. Bloate's conviction. It recognized that six circuits hold that "pretrial motion preparation may be excluded, if the court specifically grants time for that purpose" and that two do not. Here, the Eighth Circuit sided with the majority in holding that the district court properly excluded days from the time of Mr. Bloate's indictment to his trial and therefore there was no violation to the Speedy Trial Act.

Question:
Is time granted to prepare pretrial motions automatically excludable under 18 U.S.C. Section 3161(h)(1)?

Conclusion:
No. The Supreme Court reversed the Eighth Circuit holding that the time granted to prepare pretrial motions is not automatically excludable from the 70-day limit under subsection (h)(1). Rather, with Justice Clarence Thomas writing for the majority, the Court stated that such time may be excluded only when a district court grants a continuance based on appropriate findings under subsection (h)(7). The Court reasoned that the period of time sought to be excluded by the government preceded the first day upon which Congress specified that such delay may be automatically excluded. Thus, in this case, the pretrial preparation time was not automatically excludable.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a separate concurring opinion. She highlighted that nothing in the majority decision prevents the Eight Circuit upon remand from considering the government's argument that Mr. Bloate's indictment and conviction remain valid. Justice Samuel A. Alito, joined by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented. He argued that the neither the text nor legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act support the majority decision. Instead, he criticized the majority for creating a rule that would entitle Mr. Bloate to dismissal of his charge because his attorney persuaded a Magistrate Judge to give him more time to prepare pretrial motions.

An Animal Rights Case

The case in question, United States vs. Stevens, centered on Robert Stevens, a purveyor of the video series "Dogs of Velvet and Steel." Stevens produced and sold videos of pit bulls engaging in dogfights and viciously attacking other animals. These videos include graphic depictions of torture and brutality, including a pit bull mutilating the lower jaw of a live pig. In January 2005, Stevens was convicted of violating the Animal Cruelty Act (1999), which criminalized the trafficking of depictions of animal cruelty, except those with "serious religious, political, scientific, educational, journalistic, historical, or artistic value." A federal appeals court overturned Stevens' conviction and ruled that the animal cruelty law violated his First Amendment right to free speech. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling.
The fundamental question is this: Does the Animal Cruelty Act violate the First Amendment right of freedom of speech? Certainly, the right to free speech is one of the paramount freedoms in our society. Our country was founded on the principle that people should not be persecuted for voicing unpopular opinions. Naturally, in order to be effective, this freedom protects disturbing and offensive speech.
However, there are very specific types of speech that we, as a society, have deemed so despicable and so lacking in merit that they do not deserve protection, among them child pornography, obscenity, threats and incitement of violence. Animal cruelty should be one of these unprotected categories. As Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society of the United States, wrote, "We wouldn't allow the sale of videos of actual child abuse or murder staged for the express purpose of selling videos of such criminal acts." There is no reason to ignore depictions of animal cruelty while rightfully criminalizing parallel depictions of child abuse.
The Supreme Court should have recognized that videos of dogfighting and animal mutilation - created not to educate or inform but merely to titillate - have no constitutional protection. As Justice Samuel Alito, the sole dissenter, argued, "The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, but it most certainly does not protect violent criminal conduct, even if engaged in for expressive purposes."
Videos of defenseless animals cruelly victimized to excite the violent and sexual fantasies of certain customers have no place in our society, regardless of the free speech claims of their producers.

Newest and Latest

President Obama will meet with senators from both parties on April 21 to discuss the upcoming vacancy on the Supreme Court, the White House announced today.
Scheduled to appear are Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, (D-Vt.) and the ranking Republican on the committee, Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.
They are expected to discuss the procedures for the confirmation hearings expected over the summer so that the new justice can take a seat on the bench by the fall term.
Obama will name a nominee to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who just last week announced his retirement from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term. The candidate will have to go through hearings held by the Judiciary Committee before a vote by the full Senate.
The White House this week revealed that among the contenders was federal appeals court judge Sidney Thomas of Montana, and at least six others who were on the list when Obama chose Justice Sonia Sotomayor for the court. Among those considered potential nominees are: former Georgia Chief Justice Leah Ward Sears, federal appeals court judges Diane Wood and Merrick Garland, Solicitor General Elena Kagan, Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.
Republican leaders have said they will examine the nominee carefully, but it is unclear whether there will be a filibuster. Democrats no longer have a sure 60 votes needed to break any logjam.

Extra Info About our Supreme Court

Constitutional Origin. Article III, §1, of the Constitution provides that "[t]he judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." The Supreme Court of the United States was created in accordance with this provision and by authority of the Judiciary Act of September 24, 1789 (1 Stat. 73). It was organized on February 2, 1790.

Jurisdiction. According to the Constitution (Art. III, §2): "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;-to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;-to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;-to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;-to Controversies between two or more States;—between a State and Citizens of another State;-between Citizens of different States;—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

"In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Appellate jurisdiction has been conferred upon the Supreme Court by various statutes, under the authority given Congress by the Constitution. The basic statute effective at this time in conferring and controlling jurisdiction of the Supreme Court may be found in 28 U. S. C. §1251 et seq., and various special statutes.

Rulemaking Power. Congress has from time to time conferred upon the Supreme Court power to prescribe rules of procedure to be followed by the lower courts of the United States. See 28 U. S. C. §2071 et seq.

The Building. The Supreme Court is open to the public from 9 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. It is closed Saturdays, Sundays, and the federal legal holidays listed in 5 U. S. C. §6103. Unless the Court or the Chief Justice orders otherwise, the Clerk’s Office is open from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on those holidays. The Library is open to members of the Bar of the Court, attorneys for the various federal departments and agencies, and Members of Congress.

The Term. The Term of the Court begins, by law, on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October of the next year. Approximately 10,000 petitions are filed with the Court in the course of a Term. In addition, some 1,200 applications of various kinds are filed each year that can be acted upon by a single Justice.

The Florida Supreme Court Seal

The origins of the official seal of the Supreme Court of Florida go far back into an obscure history. Before statehood in 1845, Florida was a territory of the United States governed by federal law. In 1824, Congress created a Court of Appeals of the Territory of Florida, which is the immediate predecessor of the present Supreme Court. Sometime between 1825 and 1845, the Territorial Court adopted an official seal that later formed the basis for the seal reproduced above. Unfortunately, the original metal disks from the first seal have not survived.

In the early 1980s, Supreme Court Librarian Brian Polley attempted to locate original sealed documents issued by the Territorial Court. Several were found in the Florida State Archives, but nearly all had been compressed through years of improper storage, causing the loss of fine details.

Mr. Polley did learn that the Territorial Court seal was strikingly similar to the present Supreme Court seal, with two notable exceptions. First, a seated Goddess of Justice appears in both seals, but in the Territorial version the eagle faces away from her. Second, the Goddess in the Territorial seal is seated on a bale of cotton, whereas in the present seal she is seated on a block of stone. The use of a cotton bale undoubtedly reflects the importance of cotton to Florida's early economy.

The present seal was officially adopted in 1950, and is the one set into the floor immediately beneath the Court rotunda. As in all prior seals, the official motto is the Latin phrase Sat Cito Si Recte (pronounced as saht see-to see rayk- tay), which means "Soon enough if done rightly." The phrase indicates the importance of taking the time necessary to reach the correct result.

In the seal the Goddess of Justice is the Greek goddess Themis. She is blindfolded to symbolize the impartiality of the law, and she carries the scales of justice in one hand and the avenging sword in the other. The letter "F" carved into the stone behind the Goddess symbolizes Florida. The eagle has been interpreted as the power of justice ruling the world.

There has been much debate over the significance of the eighteen stars above the Goddess. Some have speculated that they mean nothing. One possible explanation, however, is that they symbolize Themis' daughter, the virgin goddess Astraea, whose constellation in the night sky is known as Virgo.

To the Greeks, Astraea symbolized what might be called "innocent justice," which was thought to have prevailed on the earth during the Golden Age. When sin entered the world, the Greeks believed, Astraea was removed from the earth and placed in the heavens as the constellation Virgo -- the virgin -- an eternal reminder of the innocent justice humankind had lost.

Our Very Own Florida Supreme Court

More than 80 women and men have served as Justices of Florida highest Court since it was created upon statehood in 1845 and held its first arguments in 1846. The Florida Supreme Court has existed for more than 150 years, spanning two vastly different eras -- the time in 1845 when Florida was the least populous Southern state, and today when Florida's population ranks fourth nationwide. Read about the History of Florida Law and the History of the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court not only is the highest court in Florida, its Chief Justice oversees the entire State Courts System. This includes many management functions centralized in Tallahassee in the Office of the State Courts Administrator, and regulation of The Florida Bar. Every court has a seal to mark its documents as official acts of the Judges or Justices. But the Seal of the Supreme Court of Florida is so old -- dating to some time before 1845 -- that no records remain to explain its exact meaning. Take an on-line historical tour of the lives and times of former Supreme Court Justices. They are a colorful group that included a former nun, a real-life Florida cowboy, and a duellist. The Supreme Court of Florida is housed in one of the most historically significant buildings in the state capital, with architecture inspired by Thomas Jefferson. I have personally visited the supreme court of Florida and I found it very fascinating. I even took my own pictures and I got to sit in the chairs. The picture above was actually taking by me via cell phone.