United States v. Lazauskas

62 M.J. 39 (2005)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

United States v. Lazauskas

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces
62 M.J. 39 (2005)

Facts

Stephen J. Lazauskas (defendant), an airman at Lackland Airforce Base, was charged with selling and using ecstasy. The pretrial process was delayed on several occasions, including a delay that occurred during Lazauskas’s Article 32 hearing. The convening authority appointed an investigating officer for the hearing and granted the investigating officer the power to grant reasonably requested delays. Lazauskas initially believed that all of the witnesses for the United States government (plaintiff) would testify in person at the hearing. After Lazauskas learned that the government planned to allow two of its witnesses to testify by telephone, he requested a continuance until the two witnesses were available to testify in person. The investigating officer granted this request, delaying the hearing by six days. At his arraignment, Lazauskas moved to dismiss the charges against him, arguing that his right to a speedy trial had been violated because 189 days had elapsed between referral of charges and the commencement of his trial. The military judge denied Lazauskas’s motion after determining that 72 days out of the 189-day delay were excluded from the military’s 120-day speedy-trial time limit. The court concluded that, taking into account the excluded delays, only 117 days had elapsed, and therefore Lazauskas’s trial had commenced within the allowable time limit. Lazauskas appealed, contesting, among other things, the military judge’s ruling that the six-day delay during the Article 32 hearing had been properly excluded.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Crawford, J.)

Concurrence (Gierke, C.J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 811,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership