The right to a speedy trial is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. O'Quinn v. Spiller, (7th Cir. 2015). Under the Sixth Amendment, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial...." U.S. CONST. amend. VI. The purpose of the right is to "limit the time during which criminal charges are hanging over a person's head unresolved." United States v. Janik, 723 F.2d 537, 542 (7th Cir.1983). In order to "make effective" this speedy trial guarantee, Congress passed the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, Pub.L. No. 93-619, 88 Stat.2076. See S.Rep. No. 93-1021, at 1 (1974). US v. Clark, 754 F. 3d 401 (7th Cir. 2014).
The speedy trial right attaches when a defendant is "indicted, arrested, or otherwise officially accused." United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 6, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 71 L.Ed.2d 696 (1982), citing United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 313, 92 S.Ct. 455, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). Hart v. Mannina, 798 F. 3d 578 (7th Cir. 2015).
The Speedy Trial Act "generally requires a federal criminal trial to begin within seventy days after a defendant is charged or makes an initial appearance...." Brown, 498 F.3d at 529; 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). However, the Act provides for the exclusion of certain periods of delay from the calculation of these seventy days. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1). These exclusions include delays for pretrial motions and proceedings. Id. If, after accounting for all permissible exclusions, the seventy day deadline is not met, "the district court must dismiss the indictment, either with or without prejudice." United States v. Monger, 879 F.2d 218, 220 (6th Cir.1989). US v. Richardson, 793 F. 3d 612 (6th Cir. 2015). See also, US v. Bert, (2nd Cir. 2016).
Under the Speedy Trial Act, defendants can obtain dismissal only if they file a pretrial motion to dismiss based on delay. United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515, 1519 (10th Cir. 1995). If a defendant fails to file a pretrial motion on this ground, the statutory right to a speedy trial is waived. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) (2012)[.] US v. Velarde, (10th Cir. 2015).
"When a defendant fails to assert his right to a speedy trial by moving for a dismissal before trial, the right is waived." United States v. Williams, 605 F.3d 556, 572-73 (8th Cir. 2010). US v. Jones, 795 F. 3d 791 (8th Cir. 2015).
The burden of proving speedy-trial violations falls on the defendant. Id. § 3162(a)(2). US v. Rojas, (5th Cir. 2016). "[I]f the defendant fails to demand a speedy trial, moves for many continuances, or otherwise indicates that he is not pursuing a swift resolution of his case, this factor weighs heavily against [him]." Gould, 672 F.3d at 938-39. In assessing a defendant's assertion of the right, it is appropriate to consider "the frequency and force of [his] objections." United States v. Margheim, 770 F.3d 1312, 1328 (10th Cir. 2014) (quoting United States v. Latimer, 511 F.2d 498, 501 (10th Cir.1975)) (alteration in original). US v. Hicks, 779 F. 3d 1163 (10th Cir. 2015).
In Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), the Supreme Court adopted a balancing test for assessing claims of a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The test weighs four factors: the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant's assertion of the right to a speedy trial, and whether the defendant has been prejudiced by the delay. Id. The Court expressly rejected a bright-line rule in favor of a "functional analysis of the right in the particular context of the case." Id. at 522, 92 S.Ct. 2182. It did so because the remedy — dismissal of the indictment — was "unsatisfactorily severe." Id. ("The right of a speedy trial is necessarily relative. It is consistent with delays and depends upon circumstances. It secures rights to a defendant. It does not preclude the rights of public justice.") (quoting Beavers v. Haubert, 198 U.S. 77, 87, 25 S.Ct. 573, 49 L.Ed. 950 (1905)). US v. Carpenter, 781 F. 3d 599 (1st Cir. 2015).
Although no single Barker factor is "a necessary or sufficient condition to the finding of a deprivation of the right of speedy trial," 407 U.S. at 533, 92 S.Ct. 2182, the second factor — reason for delay — is often critical. US v. Moreno, 789 F. 3d 72 (2nd Cir. 2015).
"Someone who is only the target of a criminal investigation has no right to have the government wrap up its investigation quickly and bring charges, even if the target is aware of the investigation." United States v. Clark, 754 F.3d 401, 405 (7th Cir.2014); see also, e.g., Pharm v. Hatcher, 984 F.2d 783, 785 (7th Cir.1993). "[E]ven an arrest by the federal authorities is insufficient if the person is immediately released without any federal charges being filed." United States v. Clark, supra, 754 F.3d at 405. (Clark was a Speedy Trial Act case, but [it] noted that "the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right, from which the Speedy Trial Act draws its substance, applies only to persons who are formally accused of a crime." Id.) Only if an arrested person is detained pending indictment does the speedy-trial clock begin to tick upon arrest. See, e.g., United States v. Loud Hawk, supra, 474 U.S. at 310, 106 S.Ct. 648 ("when no indictment is outstanding, only the 'actual restraints imposed by arrest and holding to answer a criminal charge ... engage the particular protections of the speedy trial provision of the Sixth Amendment,'" quoting United States v. Marion, supra, 404 U.S. at 320, 92 S.Ct. 455); Dillingham v. United States, 423 U.S. 64, 65, 96 S.Ct. 303, 46 L.Ed.2d 205 (1975) (per curiam). US v. Richardson, 780 F. 3d 812 (7th Cir. 2015).
A court is empowered to "grant an excludable continuance . . . when the government needs additional time to prepare, so long as the government has not created that need itself through lack of diligence." United States v. Occhipinti, 998 F.2d 791, 797 (10th Cir. 1993). US v. Taylor, (10th Cir. 2015).
A district court can, on its own motion or at the request of a party, grant an excludable continuance if "the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The substantive balancing underlying the decision to grant such a continuance is entrusted to the district court's sound discretion. See United States v. Kelley, 36 F.3d 1118, 1126 (D.C.Cir.1994); see also, e.g., United States v. Clark, 717 F.3d 790, 822 (10th Cir.2013). But this "substantive openendedness" is balanced by "procedural strictness." Zedner, 547 U.S. at 509, 126 S.Ct. 1976. An ends-of-justice continuance is excludable only if the court "sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). The court's findings must indicate that it "seriously weigh[ed] the benefits of granting the continuance against the strong public and private interests served by speedy trials." United States v. Bryant, 523 F.3d 349, 361 (D.C.Cir.2008); see also United States v. Sanders, 485 F.3d 654, 659 (D.C.Cir.2007) (holding ends-of-justice findings insufficient "insofar as the district court made no mention of the countervailing interests"). US v. Rice, 746 F. 3d 1074 (DC Cir. 2014).
When determining whether the ends of justice outweigh the public and defendant's interests in a speedy trial, the Act requires the district court to consider several factors, including "[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance ... would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice" and "[w]hether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case ... would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(i), (iv). It also requires a court to "set[ ] forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A). US v. Williams, 753 F. 3d 626 (6th Cir. 2014).
It is well established that "Congress did not intend any particular type of dismissal to serve as the presumptive remedy for a Speedy Trial Act violation." United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 334 (1988); accord United States v. Caparella, 716 F.2d 976, 980 (2d Cir. 1983). Rather, "[t]he determination of whether to dismiss an indictment with or without prejudice is committed to the discretion of the district court." United States v. Wilson, 11 F.3d 346, 352 (2d Cir. 1993). US v. Bert, (2nd Cir. 2016).
The Act does, however, set out factors that a district court must consider in choosing between the two remedies:
In determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense; the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal; and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). "In addition to these statutory factors, the Supreme Court has indicated that prejudice to the defendant should also be considered." Wilson, 11 F.3d at 352 (citing Taylor, 487 U.S. at 334). US v. Bert, ibid.
A district court is not free simply to exercise its equitable powers in fashioning an appropriate remedy for a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, Taylor, 487 U.S. at 332-33, but "must carefully consider those factors as applied to the particular case and, whatever its decision, clearly articulate their effect in order to permit meaningful appellate review," id. at 336 (emphasis added). "To permit appropriate appellate review, the district court should explicate as clearly as possible the bases for its conclusions as to each factor." United States v. Giambrone, 920 F.2d 176, 180 (2d Cir. 1990). "Although the role of an appellate court is not to substitute its judgment for that of the trial court," the factors identified in the statute call for "more substantive scrutiny" in order to determine "whether [the] district court has ignored or slighted a factor that Congress has deemed pertinent to the choice of remedy." Taylor, 487 U.S. at 336-37. We will not lightly disturb "the district court's judgment of how opposing considerations balance," as long as all "the statutory factors are properly considered, and supporting factual findings are not clearly in error." Id. at 337. US v. Bert, ibid.
THIS CASEBOOK contains a selection of 140 U. S. Court of Appeals decisions that interpret, analyze and apply provisions of the Speedy Trial Act. The selection of decisions spans from 2002 to the date of publication.