The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Matta-Lopez, 73 F.3d 371 (9th Cir. 1995):
We decline to address the merits of Matta's speedy trial claim because he did not raise the issue sufficiently in the district court. In the district court, he argued only that his speedy trial rights "may have been violated by the delay in prosecution" and "reserve[d] the right to supplement" his motion to dismiss based on the speedy trial claim after discovery. The district court observed that Matta cited no law or facts in support of his motion and denied the motion without prejudice. Matta did not pursue the claim further. Matta's failure to litigate his claim in the district court precludes appellate review. See United States v. Oregon, 769 F.2d 1410, 1415 (9th Cir.1985).
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.