United States v. Jones, No. 14-1171 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseJones was arraigned as a felon in possession of a firearm on October 23. The magistrate set a November 26 trial date. His attorney obtained five continuances, each time stating that it was “in his best interests to waive his rights to a speedy trial.” Jones filed a pro se motion for ineffective assistance on July 15, stating: Dose not take my Phone calls no more. … tells me she is coming to see me ... (never dose) … She Contenue each time. I’ve wrote her and made it Court record that I want to go too trial. no Contenue’s … A attorney files motion to Dismiss for Lack of Evidance and file with the Court to Surrpress the Evidance, This maybe Lazyness or that the attorney Has no interest in my case. no Disposition were tooken … I’ve been in Jail for 9 months now. More then enough time to Perpair for trial. … I want a different attorney. Without holding a hearing, the magistrate denied the motion, and ordered Jones’s counsel to meet with him. Neither Jones nor his attorney said anything more about his motion. Five weeks later, Jones proceeded to trial with the same counsel. The Eighth Circuit affirmed his conviction, rejecting arguments that the court did not adequately inquire into his motion; his Speedy Trial Act rights were violated; and the government engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by introducing a video of the search.
Court Description: Benton, Author, with Wollman and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. While an on-the-record inquiry into defendant's pre-trial motion for appointment of counsel would have aided review, the magistrate judge did not err in denying the motion without an inquiry as the motion described defendant's complaints in detail and did not provide a basis for removing counsel and appointing a new lawyer; Speedy Trial Act claim based on defendant's attorney's requests for continuances was waived because defendant failed to assert his Speedy Trial Act rights before trial; video of search contained relevant evidence and the fact that it depicted possible other criminal activity did not prejudice defendant in light of the court's directions to the jury and the strength of the government's case in this felon-in-possession prosecution.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.