 Like you, this docket clerk, Harry Chambers, has just learned the basics of the Speedy Trial Act. Let's follow him inside and watch him try to apply what he's learned as he makes some docket entries in our hypothetical case. Looks like he's ready to start his day. Since he'll be making docketing entries, he begins by selecting number one from the main ICMS criminal menu. Number three from the docket query open menu. Now he's ready to go. Remember, he's new, so he might make a few mistakes. He'll probably need some help along the way. Looks like a co-defendant case. United States versus Angela Smith and Michael Jones. That means the first entry will be on March 22nd. That's because a criminal complaint was filed on that date. After being signed by Magistrate Judge Trelitzee. The complaint charges both defendants with two crimes. Distribution of a controlled substance. And conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. Okay, let's see now. Once the complaint has been filed, the defendants go into procedural interval P0. That's because simply filing a complaint doesn't really have any Speedy Trial consequences for anyone. The defendants haven't been arrested, so wait a minute. I'll bet warrants were issued for their arrest on the same date the complaint was filed. Right. Warrants were issued for the arrest of both defendants also on March 22nd. But since the government doesn't know where to find the defendants, the defendants go into location fugitive as of that date. Very good. Time to docket these events. When our clerk dockets the issuance of the arrest warrants, ICMS criminal will prompt him to start an excludable. Any idea which excludable it will be? Let's find out. Our clerk will probably have a little trouble with this one. An excludable? Huh. Well, let's see. The defendants are in location fugitive because the government doesn't know where they are. It's like the case is going on, but at this point the defendants are absent. Right. Absent, aha. I'll bet it's an excludable XM, like they told us in training. An excludable XM applies during the absence or unavailability of the defendant or an essential government witness. I didn't say it like that. Well, these defendants are about as absent as you can get because no one can find them. Now let's see. Who do I select? Well, the excludable would apply to both defendants because they're both absent. So I'll apply the XM to Smith and Jones by selecting E for every defendant. Now I'll have to specify the type of excludable I want to start for Smith. And do the same for defendant Jones. Now, not that I don't believe everything they say about ICMS criminal, but let me take a peek at the query screen for Smith and see if this thing is really on the ball. Our disbelieving clerk is talking about making a docketing query. The query program in ICMS criminal enables him to retrieve a wide range of information about a case he's docketing. He selects number 10, speedy trial information. This puts him in a position to view information bearing on excludable, location and procedural intervals in the Smith and Jones case on a per-defendant basis. Here our clerk enters selection two to run an excludable query for defendant Smith. As you can see, the display shows the excludable intervals that apply to defendant Smith's case. The only excludable so far is the excludable just docketed by the clerk. Hey, what do you know? It started the XM just like I told it to. And the XM begins to run on March 22nd just like it's supposed to, but there's no stop date because the defendants haven't been arrested yet. No stop date means the excludable is currently still pending or, as we say, still running. Let's see if he can figure out what happens when the defendants are arrested. Looks like both defendants were arrested on April 1st. Their arrest moves them from location fugitive to location custody and from P0 to P1. And since the defendants were arrested on April 1st, the government has until May 1st to file indictments against them. That's 30 days, right? Right. Not bad. OK. What's next? Oh, right. Select excludables for stop date entry. Since the defendants have been arrested, it's time to stop their excludable XMs. The clerk does this by typing in the arrest date April 1st as the stop date for the excludable XM. This stops the excludable for Smith. Now he needs to stop it for Jones, too. And that stops it for Jones. Take that, Smith and Jones. Now that you're arrested, your speedy trial clock begins to run. I keep picturing this giant alarm clock running a 100-yard dash or maybe it's the 30-day dash since we're in P1 or even the 90-day dash since we're in LC. You're a sick man, Chambers. I'm beginning to think so, too. Let's see. What else? OK. Also on 401, both defendants make their initial appearance in court. That brings another excludable into play, but he probably won't. Which means they each get an XH for that day. Hey, this guy's pretty good. I mean, not that good. So XH for April 1st for Smith and for Jones. Why? Because excludable XH applies to delays caused by time spent in other proceedings involving the defendant. That means days spent in hearings not covered by other speedy trial excludable categories. This time, they got an XH for the day of their initial appearance in court. They'll also get XHs for bail hearings, preliminary examinations, arraignments, and pretrial conferences as the case makes its way through the system. One other thing happens on April 1st. As the query screen shows, defendant Smith moves from location fugitive to location custody on April 1st. And so does defendant Jones. Looks like our next entry is dated April 5th. April 5th. Jones posts the $100,000 surety bond ordered by magistrate Judge Turlitzy. Turlitzy orders him released on conditions. If he's out, he moves from location custody to location release. Well, that stops his 90-day custody clock from running. Looks like this guy only spent four days in custody. The next event in the case occurs on April 15th, when indictments are filed against both defendants. The filing of the indictments calls three important procedural intervals into play. Do you know which three intervals will be affected? I bet our clerk doesn't. One or two may be, but not three. Smith and Jones again, indicted on April 15th. Tough luck, Smith and Jones, but I guess you knew it was coming. Let's see. Where does that put them in terms of speedy trial? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, I think he's going to need some help with this one. OK. Both defendants have been indicted. And the court has appointed lawyers for them. So their PNT begins on April 15th. Like they told us in training. Procedural non-trial interval ensures that the defendant has at least 30 days to work with a lawyer to prepare the case for trial. Which means the Smith and Jones trial can't start less than 30 days from April 15th. I didn't think you'd get that. Of course, intervals P1 and P2 come into play as well. Yeah, but explain how. The filing of the indictments on April 15th moves the defendants from P1 to P2. And since P1 only began on April 1st, the indictments were filed well within P1's 30 day time limit. And of course, now that the case is in P2, the government has 70 days from April 15th to bring Smith and Jones to trial. He's right again. Well, here's what the query screen would show at this point. P0 began on March 22nd. The date the complaint was filed and ended when the defendant was arrested. P1 ran from April 1st, the arrest of the defendants on the complaint, until April 15th. On April 15th, the indictment was filed with two counts. And since the defendants have had their first appearance, their counts moved into P2. PNT isn't shown on these query screens, but of course, Hart-Clerk knows all about PNT anyway. Well, maybe he'll need help with the next entry. Well, I mean, not that I don't want him to do well. Well, let's just see how he does. There, on April 22nd, the defendants were arraigned. And I've made sure they each got another XH for the day they spent in court, getting copies of the indictment and entering pleas of not guilty. Well, I guess that was easier than I thought. Let's see what he does with his next one. Looks like both defense counsel have filed a motion asking the court to order the government to turn over Brady material to the defense. Brady material is the lawyer's term for exculpatory evidence, evidence that might help show the defendants aren't guilty. The defense motion, called a Brady motion, alleges that the government has some exculpatory evidence in its possession. It asks the court to order that the evidence be turned over to the defense. Let's see now, a Brady motion filed for both defendants. Well, excludable XE applies to any period of delay resulting from pretrial motions. I must admit, this guy has a good memory. Okay, XE for Smith, there. Now, the start date. I'll start an excludable XE for defendant Smith as of, what's that date again? May 1st. And now for Jones. This could really be an interesting case if the government really has some evidence that could exculpate these two. There. The motion was filed on May 1st. Both XE start on May 1st. Here's what the docket text looks like for the Brady motion. Unfortunately for our defendants, the court disagrees with the allegations in their motion. On May 5th, it enters an order denying the motion. Since we are disposing of the motion, ICMS criminal will prompt us to stop the pending XE excludable. There, XE is stopped for defendant Smith. Now for Jones. That's done, let me check the docket text. The next entry is a little more complicated. May 20th, defendant Smith enters plea of guilty to count two, count one to be dismissed at sentencing. Guilty? Not guilty. Smith pleads to count two. That's conspiracy to distribute a controlled substance. And the government will dismiss the actual distribution count at sentencing, which is set for June 10th. Okay, so I'll move count two from P2 to P5. As I'm sure you know, P5 or procedural interval five covers the time between the entry of a guilty plea or a guilty verdict and sentencing. Let's see how the clerk moves count two from P2 to P5. There, now what's the rest of this entry say? Court orders trial continue to June 20th and finds that ends of justice outweigh interest of public and the defendant in a speedy trial. But whose speedy trial are we talking about? Smith pleaded guilty. Oh, of course, Jones. The judge is postponing Smith sentencing until after Jones' trial. Hmm, I wonder why. I can tell you the reasons for the continuance. At least there are some things he doesn't know. It appears that Smith's plea bargain calls for her to cooperate with the government by testifying against Jones at trial. This will require a lot more work for the attorneys in the case. The government will have to meet with Smith, find out exactly what she knows and include her in its trial strategy. And the defense will have to respond to this turn of events, perhaps by changing its own trial tactics. These things will take time, but allowing the party's time to fully prepare their cases can only serve the interests of justice. Hmm, I do know that time can't be excluded for a continuance in the interests of justice unless the court sets forth its reasons either orally or in writing. I wonder if the court did so in writing in this case. I wonder if he'll know which excludable applies in this situation. Well, that was complicated, but I'd buy her reasoning. Now what do I do? I know, you're not telling me, but I know. Start an excludable XT for Jones, because that's the excludable that applies to continuances granted by the court when the interests of justice outweigh the defendant and public's interest in a speedy trial. Right? Right. So much for the confusion. I can see he really doesn't need me. It's just him in the computer now. Okay, excludable XT in 5, 20, 91, and 6, 10, 91. Once the clerk dockets all information pertaining to the entry of Smith's guilty plea, a procedural interval query for Smith will show that while count one in her case remains in P2, count two moved to P5 on May 20th. Let's see what happens next. So she was sentenced to 12 months on count two. That means I have to move count two to P6. And since count one was dismissed at sentencing, I'll have to move count one to P9. Well, I was totally wrong about him. He did an excellent job. Here's the docket text for the sentencing minutes. Now, let's take a look at the query screen and review how Angela Smith's counts moved from interval one to interval nine, unless maybe our clerk wants to do this. No, that's okay. I think you can handle it. By the way, I think you're doing a great job. You're new at this, aren't you? No, I'm not. Carry on, I'm going to get some coffee. Well, let's be professional here. As you can see, Smith's case entered P0 when the complaint was filed. Then P1 on 4-1 when she was arrested on the complaint. She was indicted on 4-15 and both counts of the indictment entered P2 on that date. Then, on 5-20, Smith entered a plea of guilty to count two. So, count two entered P5, awaiting sentencing, on 5-20, and stayed there until 6-10 when she was sentenced. On 6-10, count two left P5 and went to P6, the post-sentencing interval. And last but not least, on 6-10, count one was dismissed as part of the plea bargain. That moved count one to P9. Well, now that you've got your coffee, do you wanna summarize the excludables in the Smith case? Sure. By the way, I knew you were there all along. Let's use the query program to review the excludables we applied along the way in the Smith case. To summarize, Excludable XM applied during the period between the issuing of the arrest warrant against Smith and her arrest. That's because she was absent or unavailable to the court from 3-22 to 4-1. She was arrested on 4-1 and brought to court that day for her initial appearance. An Excludable XH applied to that court date and another XH applied on 4-22, the date of her arraignment. Through counsel, Smith and Jones filed a motion on May 1st so an Excludable XE began to run on that date. But on May 5th, the court denied the motion so the XE was terminated. How was that? Well, I must say that was pretty good. Yeah, well, I used to be a narrator, but I like this better. Well, that explains a lot of things. Good luck to all you docket clerks out there. We hope we've explained a lot of things to you too. This concludes our pre-training program on ICMS criminal and the Speedy Trial Act. Thank you for your attention and remember, your district court may interpret certain provisions of the act differently from the way we've interpreted them and that can affect docketing procedures. Also, your clerk's office may follow different docketing practices than the ones we've used. So if anything we've discussed here differs from what happens in your court, ask your supervisor to explain the reason for the difference and follow your supervisor's instructions. And finally, when you attend the Automation Training Center in Phoenix or San Antonio, feel free to ask your trainer whatever questions you have about case docketing and the Speedy Trial Act.