Whether a District Court may dismiss an indictment under the Speedy-Trial-Act where the District Court finds that it is possible to hold a jury trial safely, but where a districtwide order forbids the holding of jury trials

QUESTIONS PRESENTED During the Covid pandemic, the Central District of California prohibited District Judges from conducting jury trials for nearly fourteen months. For most of this period, the state trial courts in the region were holding jury trials—ultimately more than 500—while the Central District held none. And for most of this period, the Central District convened grand juries in the same federal courthouses where jury trials were forbidden, so defendants were compelled to enter a criminal justice system from which there was no exit. Even where a District Judge determined that a jury trial could be held safely, and that the failure to provide one in a timely manner would violate the Speedy Trial Act, the Central District refused to allow the trial to proceed. In a decision with “troubling implications that will extend well beyond the pandemic,” as Judge Collins observed in his dissenting opinion below, the Ninth Circuit held that the District Judge could not dismiss the indictment under the Speedy Trial Act. The Questions Presented are: I. Whether a District Court may dismiss an indictment under the Speedy Trial Act, where the District Court finds that it is possible to hold a jury trial safely, but where a districtwide order forbids the holding of jury trials. II. Whether a District Court may dismiss an indictment with prejudice as a remedy for a Speedy Trial Act violation where the court, not the prosecutor, is principally at fault for the delay.