The federal Speedy Trial Act generally requires an indictment or information within 30 days of a qualifying federal arrest or summons, and trial within 70 days of the later of charging or the defendant’s initial appearance in the charging court. These are calculated statutory clocks, not promises that every case ends within 100 calendar days. [1]
Excluded time changes the calculation
Section 3161 excludes specified periods, including certain proceedings concerning the defendant, pretrial motions, competency issues, and qualifying continuances. An ends-of-justice continuance requires the court’s findings; a defendant’s general agreement to delay is not an unlimited waiver. Codefendants and interlocutory appeals can complicate the calculation.
A state arrest ordinarily does not start the federal charging clock merely because federal charges later follow. Identify the actual federal arrest, charge, appearance, motions, and court findings before calculating elapsed time.
What happens after a violation
Section 3162 provides dismissal remedies, but dismissal may be with or without prejudice. The court considers statutory factors, so a missed deadline does not invariably prevent a new prosecution. A defendant generally must raise a trial-clock dismissal motion before trial or a guilty plea; failing to do so can waive the statutory remedy. [2]
Ask counsel to prepare a dated clock chart using the docket and exclusion orders. Distinguish this statute from the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right, which uses a different analysis. A suspiciously long case deserves review even when a simple count of calendar days cannot establish a statutory violation.
A clock chart avoids common mistakes
For example, a defendant may see seventy calendar days pass after an initial appearance while a pretrial motion remains pending. That observation alone does not establish a violation. Counsel must determine which periods the statute excludes, whether an advisement limit applies, and whether any continuance contains sufficient findings. The docket label “continued” is not the complete legal analysis.
A useful chart lists each triggering event, motion, hearing, decision, continuance, and period attributed to a codefendant. It should identify the statute supporting each exclusion and flag disputed dates. This makes the difference between a possible violation and a simple scheduling frustration concrete.
If a violation occurred, assess the requested remedy before entering a plea. Dismissal without prejudice can permit the government to recharge, while dismissal with prejudice bars that prosecution on the affected charge. The court must apply statutory factors rather than automatically selecting the outcome most favorable to either side. [2]
Custody issues such as a U.S. Marshals hold should be separated from the trial clock and any later sentencing hearing.
Primary sources
Sources checked: October 31, 2026.