What is the test for relying on dicta in determining whether a charge under the Speedy Trial Act should be dismissed?
The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Cumberbatch, 563 F.2d 49 (2nd Cir. 1977):
3 The appellant relies on dicta in two cases. In Hilbert v. Dooling, 476 F.2d 355 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 878, 94 S.Ct. 56, 38 L.Ed.2d 123 (1973), which involved dismissal under the Speedy Trial Act, we stated in a footnote:
(T)hough we need not decide the issue, the addition of a conspiracy count based on essentially the same transaction would not appear to be legally significant for the purpose of determining whether the charge should be dismissed under Rule 4 of the Prompt Disposition Rules.
Id. at 357 n.5 (emphasis added). Compare United States v. Cala, 521 F.2d 605 (2d Cir. 1975).
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
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.
