## In the



# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 3223 J OSE J. L O ERA, J R ., Pet i t i one r -Appe l l ant, v. U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, R espo nd ent-A pp ellee.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, H amm ond D ivisi on. No . 2:1 0-cv-00 45 3-PPS

—Phi li p P. Si mon, Chief Ju dge .
A RG UE D J AN UA RY 15, 2013

— D ECI DE D M AY 7, 2013

Befo re P OSNER, W OO D , a nd T INDER, C ircu it Judges . P OSNER, Cir cu i tJudg e . The pet i ti oner, J ose Loer a, as ks us to se t a si de hi s co nvi cti on o n the gr ound that hi s t ri al law yer had been i ne ffective. See 28 U
. S. C
. § 2255. Loera had b e e n i nd i c t e d b a c ki n 2 0 0 5 o n dr ugc ha r g e s . I n r es po ns e t o a mo t i o n t o s up pr e ss, the j ud g e h a d fo rb i dd en th e g ov er n m en t t o offe r ev id en c e o f w h a t th e p et iti onerhad to l d D EA ag ents afterhe a l l ege dly as ked f or a l aw yer . A fterr epeate d conti nuances the j ud ge dis-2 N o. 11

- 3223

m i sse d the i nd i ctm ent ( though without prej ud i ce) , o n th e g r o und tha t th e del ayr es ul tingfr o m the conti nuances had vi ol ate d the Speedy Tri alA ct, 18 U
. S. C. §§ 3161 et seq
. Lo e r a wa s r e i nd i c t e d a nd a g a i n s ou g htt o s up pr es s hi s st at ement s to the a g en ts
. Butthi s ti m e th e j ud ge

— th e sam e j ud ge

— den i ed th e m o ti o n o n the gr ound that actual l y Loer a had no t tol d the D E A ag ents he wanted a la w yer . S o the s tat em ents w er e a dm i tte d i nto e v i de nc e . T he j ur y c o nv i c t e d L o e r a a nd the j ud ge sente nced hi m to 240 m onths i n pri son. W e affi rm ed th e con viction an d sent en ce. 565 F. 3d 406 (7th C ir. 2009). Lo er a f au l ts hi s l awy er fi r st f o r ha vi ng f ai l ed to ar g ue t o the di s t r i ct j ud ge tha tthe de ni a l o fthe mo t i o n t o s up pr es s i n the fi r stroun d ofthe c r i m i na l pr o ce eding sh o ul d b e bi ndi ngi n the s ec o nd r o und

— the t ri al

—by vi r tu e o fthe do ct r i ne o fc o l l at er al es to ppel ; a nd s ec o nd for ha vi ngf ai l ed to a r g ue in tha t fi r str o und tha t th e del ayi n the pr o ce edinghad viol at ed no t o nl y the Sp ee dy Tr i alActb uta l so the s pee dy tr i alc l au se o fthe Si xth A m endm ent; i fso , the dism iss alo fthatpro c ee d in g s h ou ld h av e b ee n w ith p rej u d ice , St r unkv. U nited Sta tes , 41 2 U.S
. 43 4, 43 9- 40 (1 973) ; 3B Charl es A lan W rig h t & P et er J. H en n in g, Fed eral P rac tice & P roc edu re§ 803, p . 358 (4th ed

. 201 3 ), in w hich even t L oera coul d not be tr i ed subsequentl y f orthe sam e o ff ense. Loera h ad bee n a pass engeri n a c arthatpol i ce offi cer s s topped because o ftr affi c violat i ons. The dri ver conse nted to a sea rch ofthe c arand the pol i ce sea rche d and fo und co caine i n a hi dd en co m partm ent. A rr est ed, and quest i oned by DE A age nts i n an intervi ewN o. 11

- 3223 3

ro om a t the c o un t y j a i l, Lo e r a t o l d the m h e k new nothi ng ab out the c oca i ne; he ha d si m plybee n as ke d to del i verthe ca r to som eone . H e a l so sai d that he ’ d been vi si ti ng f am i l y in A tl anta and th at t he dri vero fthe car had dri ven d own and pic ked hi m up ther e. W hen th e a ge n ts to ld h im h e w ou ld rem a i n in jail an d w ou ld probabl y b e char ged with c oca i ne tr affi cki ng i n vi ol ati on offedera l l aw , he s ai d, acco rdi ng to o ne ofthe age nts, th at he w an ted “t o he l p hi m se l fo uti fhe c an ” bymaking a co ntro l l ed del i ve ry o fthe carto as si st the a gents i n apprehendin g th e intended reci pie nt o fthe drugs. The age nt added: “he j ust co nti nued to as k what can I d o t o h elp m ys elf ou t o f th e s itu at ion .” Loer a was i nd i cted. H i s l aw yerm ove d to su p p re ss the s tat em ents th at he had m ade to the age nts. They had re ad hi m hi s M i r anda r i ghts and he had re fused to si gn a waiv ero fthem

. The m oti on a l l eged t h at h e had as ked f or a la w yerbut that the a gents had not sto pp ed quest i o ni ng h i m. W h en th e g ov er n m en t t old th e jud ge , in re sponse to the m oti on t o supp re ss, thati t “ w as not co nc erne d wi ththe s tatem en ts, ” th e j udg e wi th o ut fur the r a do s up pr e s s e d “ a nys t a tem e nt s [ Lo e r a ] ma de afterhi s r equest f orco unsel

. ” But he did notsuppress al l o fLoer a’ s pos t- ar re st state m en ts, as the m oti on had re q u es te d . N or d id h e ru le t h a t L oe ra h ad ac tu ally ask ed f ora l aw yer

— i n l igh t ofthe gov er nm ent’ s l ack o fi nt e r e s ti n the s t a t e men t s he had n o n e e d t o de c i de whethe r Lo er a ha d a l eg alr i g htt o the i rs uppr es si o n. I t ’ s l i k e w h e n a pa r t y m o v e s i n l i mi n e t o e x c l u d e s o me p iec e o f ev id en c e a n d th e o th er p ar ty rep lies th at it4 N o. 11

- 3223 has no o bj ecti on a nd so th e j ud ge gr ants the m oti on w i thout bothering to r eso l ve the f actualdi spu te s that w ou ld h av e a ris e n h a d t h e p ar ty th at offe re d th e e vide nc e o b j e c t e d. M o nths pa ss ed wi th o utthe c as e g o i ngt o t r i al, o wi ng to re peated r equests f orco nt inuances

— w hi ch the j ud ge gr anted

— m ad e by th e govern m en t, by L oera’s l aw yer, a n d b y th e l a wy e r f o r Lo e r a ’ s c o - d e f e n d a n t
. I n N o v e mber20 06

— 19 m onths afte r the ind i ctm ent had be en i ssued

— Loer a m ove d to d ism i ss i t o n the gr ound of ex cess ive d elay, citi ng cons titution al and statu tory gr ou n d s fo r d i s m i s sa l. B u t in su p p or t o f th e m ot ion h is l a wy e r a r g ue d o nl y the s t a t ut o r y g r o un d. The f o l l o wi ngmo nth the j ud g e g r a nt e d the moti on and dism i sse d the i nd i ctm ent without prej ud i ce, a perm i ssibl e s ancti on f orvi ol ati on o fthe Speedy Tri alA ct. 18 U .S.C . § 31 62 (a)( 2); Z edn er v. U nited Sta tes , 547 U .S. 48 9, 49 9 (2 00 6); U nited Sta tes v. Sy k es , 6 14 F. 3d 303, 30 9- 10 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 1 0 )
. T wo mo nths l a t e r Loer a wa s r e i nd i c t e d. The case went to tr i altwo m onths afterthat

. I n the r e s umed pr o c e e di ngthe l a wy e r a g a i n fi l e d a m oti on t o supp re ss al l the sta tem ents hi s cl i ent had m ade to th e DEA ag en ts afte r hi s ar r es t. The j udg e co nd u cted an evi denti ar y hea ri ng. A DE A ag ent who had questi oned Loer a t est i fi ed that Lo er a had notas ked f or a law yer or sough t to stop the q ue stioning. Loe ra te st i fi ed to the c o nt r ar y . The j udg e dec i ded th atthe agen t w as telling the tru th and so ruled t ha t L oera had n e v e r a s k e d fo r a l a wy e r a nd s o the s t a t em ents sh o ul d no t be s uppr es se d. The j udg e th us r ul ed o n theN o. 11

- 3223 5

m er i ts ofthe m oti on; f or L oe ra’s l aw yerhad f ai l ed to ar gu e that the m oti on t o supp re ss shoul d be g ra nted re gar dle ss ofi ts m eri t, by f or ce o fthe doctr i ne o f c olla te ra l es to p p el. I t i s d ou b tful thatthe re fusalto suppress the postar r e st state m en ts to the DE A agen ts, ifi t w as an error, w as a har mfulo ne . Onthe o ne h a nd the o the r e v i de nc e of L oe ra ’s g u ilt w as p ow er fu l. T h e jur y h e ar d te st im ony f ro m t h e inf or m ant who had l i nked Loer a t o the dr ug r i ng and had to l d the ag ents w h er e a nd wh en he w ou ld be trav eli ng . A nd du rin g t h e tra ffic stop L oera an d the d ri ve r ha d m ade i nc o ns i st en t st at ement s ab o ut the p u rpos e o fthei r tr i p and L oer a had be en unabl e t o tel l the p o l i c e wh e r e h i s r e l a t i v e s i n At l a nt a l i v e d, eve n ap p ro x im ate l y a nd ev en tho ugh he s ai d he’d be en sta yi ng with them

. A n d o n the othe r hand the sta tem ents he m ad e t o the DEA ag ents, r atherthan am ou n tin g t o a co n fes sio n , w er e c on sis te n t w ith h is po si ti o n a t tr i al ; f o r he ha d de ni ed to the a g en ts kno wi ng ther e was co cai ne i n the car . I t’ s tru e th at hi s o ff erto “h elp h im self ou t” by m aking a con troll ed de li very o fth e c o c a i n e s u g g e s t e d , a tth e l e a s t, a s u s p i c i o u s f a mil iari ty w ith th e d rug s c e ne . Bu t since h e d idn ’t testify at th e trial, his de nial t o the D E A agen ts th at he ’d kn ow n th ere w as coc aine in the car at le a s t got before th e ju r y a d en ial of g u ilt b y t h e d efe n d an t. A n d ev en if he was m ix ed u p i n so m e way i n the i l l ega l dr ugs ce ne , tha t di d n’t m ean he was i nv o l ve d i n dr ug deal i ng w h en the cari n w hi ch he was a passenge r w as p ulled over.6 N o. 11

- 3223 Bu t we needn’tr el y o n th e d octri ne o fhar m l ess er ro r in co ncl ud i ng tha t the adm i ssi on o fthe sta tem ents i s no t a ba si s f o r r ev er singLo er a’ s co nv i ct i o n. The doctr i ne o fco l l ate ra l es toppel, an o ff shoo t o fr es j ud i cata, te aches that a j ud ge’ s r uling o n an i ssue ofl aw or f act i n one proce edi ng bi nd s i n a subseq u en t proc e e di ngthe p a r t y a g a i ns twh o m t he j ud g e h a d r ul e d, pr o vi ded th atthe r ul ing coul d ha ve b ee n ( o r was , b ut unsuccessfu lly) chal l enged o n appeal, o r i fnotthatat l eas t i t was sol i d, re l i abl e, and fi nal r atherthan “i ntended to be t entat i ve. ” Lum m us C o. v. C om m onw ealth O il Re f i n e ry Co
. , 29 7 F
. 2d 80, 89 ( 2d Cir

. 19 61)
. A nd pro vi ded al so tha t th e r ul i ngwas ne ce ss ar y t o the v al i di tyo fthe fi nal j ud gm ent in the case , as o ther w i se ther e would be l i ttl e incenti ve to chal l enge i t o n ap p eal, and that i t had be enmade o nl y after the pa r tyl at erc o m pl aini ngabo ut i t ha d ha d a n o ppo r tunity f o r a ful l a nd f ai r he ar i ng (n ot n ec es sa rily o ra l, h ow ev er ). Taylor v. Sturgell, 55 3 U .S. 88 0, 89 2 (2 00 8); D e xia C réditLo ca l v. Rogan , 62 9 F
. 3d 61 2, 62 8-2 9 (7 th C ir. 20 10 ); H ar r i s Tr us t& Sa vi ngs Bank v. E ll is , 810 F.2d 70 0, 70 5 (7 th C ir. 19 87 ); R estate m e nt (Se cond) of Judgm ents § 27 ( 1982 ). T he govern m en t ri gh tly acknow led g e s the doc trine’s ap p l i c ab ility to cr im in al c as es . Ash ev. Swe ns on , 397 U
. S. 43 6, 44 3 (1 97 0); U nited Sta tes v. O p p e nh eim er, 24 2 U.S
. 85 , 87 (19 16 ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Sa l e r no , 10 8 F
. 3d 73 0, 74 1 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); U nited Sta tes v. Ha rvey, 900 F. 2d 1253 , 12 57 ( 8th Ci r . 1 990). S o a ppl i ed, i t o per at es much l i k e th e r ul e a g a i ns tdo ub l e j e o pa r dy

— an d in d ee d h as b ee n h eld to be a co m ponent o fthe const i tuti onalpro te cti onN o. 11

- 3223 7 ag ain std ou b le jeop ar d y. D o w ling v. U nited Sta tes , 49 3 U .S. 34 2, 34 7 (1 99 0); Ash e v. Swe ns on , sup ra , 39 7 U.S
. at44 5- 46 . Bu t i t i s a l so a c om m on l aw pri nci ple : “r es j ud i cata [ i ncl ud i ng co l l ate ra l es toppel ] i s v er y m uc h a c om m on l aw subj ect. ” 1 8 Charl es A l an W ri ght, A rthur R. M i l l er & E d w ar d H . C o o p e r, Fed eral P rac tice & P roc edu re§ 4403 , p . 35 (2 d ed . 200 2) (fo ot n ot e o m itt ed ). C r im in al la w is su ffus ed w ith su ch princ iples. T hin k of attem p t, con sp iracy, ai ding and abett i ng, m al i ce a f or etho ught, r eckl ess ness, entr apm ent, se l f

- defe nse, and duress

— al l bei ng c o mm o n l a w pr i nc i pl e s ( o ft e n r e na med ) a da pte d to fles h in g ou t t er se cr im in al s ta tu te s. C f. D ix o n v . U nited Sta tes , 548 U
. S. 1, 13-14 (2006); M o rissette v. U nited Sta t es , 34 2 U .S. 24 6, 25 0-5 2 (1 95 2). A n d so co llat er al e st op p el is appli cabl e in a c ri m i nal pro ceedi ng witho ut r efer ence to the double j eopar dy cl ause, though of cour se i n a fed er al pros ecution the appli cabl e v er si on o fco l l ate ra l es toppel i s the federa l

. S ee Sem te k Int’ l, Inc. v. Lockheed M arti n Corp
. , 53 1 U.S
. 49 7, 50 7 ( 2001 ) ; N ote , “The Due Pro cess Ro ot s ofCri m i nal Col l ate ra lEsto pp el, ” 1 09 H ar v. L. Re v. 1729 , 1742 (1996). The si gni fi cance for thi s ca se ofthe dist i ncti on between co m m on l aw co l l ate ra l es toppel and col l ate ra l est oppel as a com ponent o fthe doub le j eo pardy cl ause i s th atLo er a ca n i nv o k e th e co m m o n l aw do ct r i ne ev entho ug h the di smi ss alo f th e fi r sti ndi ct m en t

— th e o r d e r th a th e s a y s p r e c l u d e d r e v i s i t i n gi n th e s e c o nd c ri m i nal pro ceedi ng the adm i ssibi l i ty ofhi s pos t- ar re st sta tem ents

— o c c ur r e d b e f o r e j e o pa r dy a t t a c he d. J e o pa r dy doesn’ t a tta ch u n til the j ury i s s w or n or, i n a b ench tr ial, ev id en c e is int ro d u c ed . B u t jeop ar d y is n o t a co n d itio n of co llat er al e st op p el.8 N o. 11

- 3223 S t i l l, th e r e mu s tb e a fi n a l j u d g me n t( i n s o me sense

— a cr i ti ca l q ual i fi ca ti o n, a s we’ r e ab o utt o s ee ) ; a nd i t ca n be ar gued that the di sm i ssa l of t h e firs t ind i ctm ent, f ol l owing the r uling suppress i ng Loer a’ s s tat em en ts, w asn’ t re al l y a fi nal j ud gm ent. I t w as w i thout p re j ud i ce, so th at t h e t ria l follow in g h is re -in d ict m en t w as rea lly j us t th e co nt i nuat i o n o fthe abo r te d fi r stpr o ce eding . But J ud ge Fr i en d ly had poi nted out the par adoxi caleff ects o fb ei ngpi cky abo utthe fi na l i tyo fthe j udg m en t so ug ht to be use d as co l l ate ra l es toppel

. S ee U nit ed S tate s ex rel
. D i Gian gi e m o v. Regan , 528 F.2d 126 2, 1265 -66 (2d C ir. 1975). I m ag i ne s ucc es si ve cri m i na l pr o ce eding s ag ains t th e sam e per son i nvol vi ng di ff er ent c ri m es but a com m on i ss ue dep en d ento n the s ame e vi den ce o fg ui l t. I n the fi rs t pr oce edi ng the j ud ge rul es at tr i althatthe evi dence sh o ul d b e su ppr es se d, a nd as a res ul t th e defen dan t i s a cquit ted. A l though the tr i alr uling would notbe appeal abl e ( noro fco urse the acqui tta l ) , as sum e that the r ul i ng is r o c ks o l i d a nd the r e f o r e , tho ugh un a ppeal abl e, enti tl ed to co l l ate ra l es toppe l eff ect. N ow su ppo se the s ame s ce nar i o b utthe j udg e m ak es the ru lin g p re tr ial, an d r at h er th an ap p ea l th e ru lin g, as it c ou ld , 1 8 U .S.C . § 37 31 , th e g ov er n m en t, d ou b tfu l in l i g hto fthe r ul i ngtha t i t ca n wi n a c onv i ct i o n wi th o ut th e e v i d e n c e th a tth e j u d g e h a s s u p p r e s s e d , wi th dr a ws th e ch ar g es i t ha d l o dge d a g ains t th e def en d ant an d l a t e r file s a n ew ind ict m en t, h op in g for a fav or ab le r ul i ngo n the de f en dan t’ s m o ti o n t o s uppr es s th e evid en ce in th is second roun d of lit igat ion. T he diff e r e n c e i n th e s t a g e o f th e p r o c e e d i n g a t wh i c h t he j ud ge rul ed shoul dn ’ t a ff ect w hetherthe i ssue can beN o. 11

- 3223 9

re vi si ted i n the seco nd pro cee d in g. Fo r these purposes , then, the dism i ssa l o fthe fi rs t ind i ctm ent s h oul d be treated as i f it w ere a final j ud gm en t and the evid en tiary r ul i ngtha t th e j udg e m ade i n tha t fi r stpr o ce eding shoul d be g i ven co l l ate ra l es toppel eff ect. N everthe l ess the doctr i ne o fco l l ate ra l es toppel was not appli cabl e in thi s ca se, and s o L oe ra ’ s l aw yercan’ t be f aul ted f ornothavi ng i nvoke d i t. N ot eve ryr uling has c ol l ate ra l est oppel eff ect i n a subsequent proce edi ng in whi chthe i ss ue res olv ed bythe r ul i ngpo ps up a g ain. Co ns i de r i ngthe n umb e r o fr ul i ng s tha t a j ud g e i s a pt to m ake in a case, w he th er civi l or c rim inal, w e w orry th at to giv e e ve ry ru lin g c o l l a t e ra l es to p p el e ffec t w ou ld m ak e t h e d oc tr in e p ro lifera te ex c es siv ely . A s in th is c as e, m an y t ria l r u l in gs are m ad e c as u ally , w ith little at te n tio n to th e m er its of th e is su e ru led on an d in t h is case pro babl y no a tt en ti on, si nce the nonm ovi ng par ty had not o pp ose d the m oti on that pr eci pit ate d the r uling. The go ver nm ent had noto pp os ed the m oti on not because i t co nceded that the ag ents had el i ci ted st ate
m e n t s from the d efend an t after he asked f or a l aw yer, butr athe r, s o f ara s appe ar s, b ec au se i t wa sn ’t (at the ti m e) i nt er es te d i n us i ngthe s ta te m en ts a t tr i al

. S o na tu
ra l l y the j ud ge granted the m oti on. That was a j ud i ci al a c t i o n , bu t itw as n ot th e re so lu tio n of a d isp u te (n am ely o ve r whethe r Lo er a ha d a sk ed f o r a l awy erb efo r e an sw er i ng the ag ents’ questi ons)
. S ee U nited St ates v. Bruce, 10 9 F .3d 32 3, 32 7 (7 th C ir. 19 97 ); Tru ck Ins . Exch angev. A shland O il, Inc. , 9 51 F
. 2d 78 7, 7 92

- 93 ( 7th Ci r . 1 99 2)
. And fi nal l y the gr ant o fthe m oti on t o sup p re ss had play ed10 N o. 11

- 3223

no r o l e i n the di smi ss al o fthe fi r sti ndi ct m en t. The onl y g ro und f orthatdi sm i ssa l had bee n vi ol ati on o f the S peedy Tri alA ct, a gr ound to whic h t h e m oti on w as i rr el evant
. Let co l l ate ra l es toppel be appli cabl e t o a case such as thi s a nd t h e gover nm ent wil l have an e nhanced i ncenti ve to take an in terlocut ory ap p eal from pret rialeviden tiary rul i ngs in cr i m i nal cas es, as i t i s per m i tte d t o do, 18 U
. S. C
. § 3731, but rarely doe s. I nt erlocut o r y ap p eals are a bur den to appell ate co urts and del ay the fi nali ty of l i t i g a t i o n; the y a r e n o tt o b e e nc o ur a g e d. Forco m ple tenes s we m enti on a doctrine r el ate d to co l l at eral es to ppeltho ug h the pa r ti es ha ve no t m en ti o ne d i t : th e d o c t r i n e o fl a w o fth e c a s e . E v e n i fa r ul i ng i s no t m ade aftero pp or tuni ty f ora fulland fair hear i ng, i t i s no t to b e l i g ht l y i g no red in a l at ers ta g e o fthe sam e pr oce edi ng , Chr i s t i ans on v. Col tIndu s t r i e s O pe r at i ng Corp. , 486 U .S. 80 0, 81 7 (1 98 8); Tice v. A m erica n A irlines , 3 7 3 F
. 3 d 8 5 1 , 8 5 3

- 5 4 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 4)

— and “ s a me pr o c e e di ng” i s the pra c tical descr i pti on o fa proce edi ng and of i ts re sum p tio n f ol l owing a di sm i ssa l witho ut prej ud i ce bef or e the sam e j ud ge and invol vi ng the i denti cal issues an d e v i d e n c e . T h e r e a s o n we g a v e e a r l i e r f o r t r e a ti ng the inter i m di sm i ssa l as “fi nal ” f orco l l ate ra l es toppel pu rpos es

— that the s tag e a t which a r uling i s m ade is not deci si ve on w hetherto gi ve the r uling co l l ate ra l est oppel eff ect

— i s no t a pp l i cabl e t o l aw o fthe case . Bu t s ti l l the j ud ge has t o have add re sse d an i ssue f or hi s r e s o l ut i o n o f i t t o b e t r e a t e d a s the l a w o fthe case . FM S, Inc . v. Vol vo Cons t r uc t i on Equipm e ntNor t h Am e r i ca, Inc. , 557 F.3d 75 8, 76 2-6 3 (7th C ir. 20 09 ); U niv ersal G ua ran teeN o. 11

- 3223 11 LifeIns. Co
. v. Co ughlin , 4 8 1 F
. 3d 458, 462 (7th Cir. 2 0 0 7); Fee se rs, Inc. v. M ichael Foods, Inc. , 5 9 1 F
. 3 d 1 9 1 , 20 8 ( 3d Cir

. 20 10) ; 18 B C harl es A l an W ri ght, A rthur R. M i l l er & E d w ar d H . C oo p er , Fed eral P rac tice & P roc edu re§ 4478 , pp . 6 4 9

- 6 4 ( 3 d e d. 2 0 0 5 )
. And , a s we ha v e s a i d, the j ud ge i n thi s ca se i n g r an tingthe m o ti o n t o s uppr es s i n the fi rs t proce edi ng had no t deci ded w hether th e stat em ents shouldh a v e b e e n s up pr e s s e d. S o the r e was no pr o cedura l v i o l at i o n r el at i ngt o the st at ement s, a nd we tu r n t o the s ec o nd issu e, c o nc erni ng th e fa ilu re of L oe ra ’s la w ye r to h av e a rg u ed t h at h is c lient’s co nsti tuti onalr i ght t o a s peedy tr i alhad bee n v i o l a t e d, i n whi c h e v e ntLo e r a c o ul d n o th a v e b e e n t r i e d. Lik e m uch ofthe Bil l o fRi ghts, the speedy t ri alcl ause i s cr ypti c. A l l i t s ays i s that a cr i m i nal defendant h as a ri ght to a s pe e dy t r i a l

. T he c r i t i c a l que s t i o n i s h ow “s p eedy. ” To gi ve som e f or m to the questi on co urts f o cus o n f o ur c o ns i der at i o ns . The y a r e th e len g tho fthe del ay between i nd i ctm ent a nd tr i al, the re aso n f ori t, w hether the defe nd ant com pla i ned about i t, and w h ether h e w as “p rej u d ice d ” b y it. D o gg ett v. U n i ted S ta tes , 50 5 U .S. 647, 65 1 ( 1992 ) ; U ni t e d S t at e s v. Wanigas i ngh e, 54 5 F. 3d 595, 59 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08). “Pr ej ud i ce” i n turn can be a l es se r c ha nc e o fa n a cqui tt al, the indi g ni tya nd disc om f or t o fbeing j ai l ed fora l ong peri od ofti m e a w ai ti ng tr i al, o r the p sy c hol og i calo r fi nanci alco nsequences of fin d in g on es elf s tu c k b et w e e n i n d ict m en t a n d tria l in a lim b o ofanxi etyand uncert ai nty. The fi rs t o fthes e th re e p rej u d ice s u b fac to rs is t h e m os t im p or ta n t, Barke rv. Wi ngo , 407 U .S. 51 4, 53 2-3 3 (1 97 2); We s tv. Sy m don , 68 912 N o. 11

- 3223 F. 3d 749, 752- 53 ( 7th C i r. 2012) , because i t pr ote cts aga i nst th e con viction of th e inn ocen t. T he oth er tw o fa ctors ar e r ea l l y j us t aspe ct s o fthe l en g tho fde l ay, a nd thus un d erscore th e prim acy of that, the fir st, factor in the fourf acto r tes t. But re al i sm r equi re s r eco gni ti on th at gi ven the g ove rnm ent’ s hea vy b u rd en o fpro ofi n cr i m i nal c as es , d ela y in br in gin g a ca se t o t r ial oft en w or ks in the defend an t’s f avo r: i fbo th pro secuti on a nd defense w itness es, or a fo rtio rio nl y pr ose cuti on witnesse s, suff erfro m f adingm em or i es, del ay w i l l r educe the l i kel i ho o d o fa c o nv i ct i o n. As we no te d r ec en tl y i n Tee d v. Thom as & Betts P o w er So lutio ns, L.L.C ., N o. 1 2-2 44 0, 20 13 W L 1 19 78 61 , a t *3 ( 7t h C ir. M ar . 26 , 20 13) , “j ud ges te nd to be parti alto m ult i f acto r tes ts, wh i ch t hey b el i eve di sci pli ne j ud i ci al deci si onm aki ng, pro vi ding obj ecti vi ty an d predic tabi l i ty. But thi s d e p e n d s o n wh e th e r th e f a c t o r s ma k i n gup the t estar e cl ear, wh ethertheyar e v al i d, w hetherea ch i s wei ghted s o that the t estcan be a pp l i ed obj ecti vel y e ven if th e f a c t o r s d on ’t a ll lin e u p on on e s id e o f th e is su e in eve rycas e . . . , and w hetherthe f actors ar e e xhausti ve ori l l ustr ati ve

— i fthe l a t t e r, the te sti s o pe n- e nd e d, hence i nd efin ite
. ” A m odelm ult i f acto r tes t

— one not subj ect to the c ri ti ci sm s s ug ge st ed i n the Teed cas e

— is J udg e Lea r ne d Hand’ s f amous thr ee- facto r t es t ( th e “H an d For m u la” ) for n eg lige n c e: B <PL
. B i s the bur den o ft ak i nga pr ec au ti o n tha t woul d ha ve a vo i ded th e ac c id en t t h at inju re d th e p lain tiff, P i s the pro babi l i ty of the a c c i de nt i f the pr e c a ut i o n wa s n’ t t a k en, an d L is the e xpected l oss to the vi cti m i fan ac c i dent occ urr edN o. 11

- 3223 13 b ec au se th e p re c au tio n h ad n ot be en t a k en . U nited Sta tes v. Ca r r ol l To wi n g Co
. , 159 F.2d 169 , 173 (2d Cir. 1947). A las , th e f o u r - f a c to r te st (six -fac to r, if th e fo u rt h is r epl ac ed byi ts thr ee s ubf actors) fo r a v i o l at i o n o fthe const i tuti onalr i ght t o a s peedy tr i all acks the cri spness o fthe Ha nd F o r mul a . Bu ta u s a b l e c o mpr e s s e d v er si on i s “ the l onge r the del ay and the m or e v i gorou s the def endant’s d em an d to be tr i ed speedi l y, the m or e r eas on the s tat e m ust s h ow fo r the del ay and the l ess har m ( of w hatev erty pe) to h im selfthe defe nd ant nee d show .” U ni t e d S t at e s ex re l
. M i t ch e l l v. Fa i r m an , 75 0 F .2d 80 6, 80 8 ( 7th Ci r. 19 84)
. The 19- m onth del ay afterLoer a’ s fi rs t i nd i ctm ent was l on g, but the re i s no i nd i cati on that i t i m pai re d his defense at tr i al

— n o s u gg es tio n th at ev id en ce f a v o r a b l e t o h i s d e f e n s e h a d b e c o me s t a l e . As f o r ps y ch o l o g i ca l o r o th erha r m fr o m i nc ar ce r at i o n, the relevan t pe riod is not 19 b u t 9 m ont hs , becau se L oera was o uto n b o nd f o r 1 0 o ftho se months; a nd 9 months i s no t anunu su alpe r i o d o fpr et r i alde te nt i o n. H e di dn’ t co m pl ain ab o ut th e del ay, m o r eo ve r, and ther e i s no i nd i cati on that he w as i m pati ent fora tr i al

— not al l defendants ar e, as we noted, a n d es peci al l y when they’r e no t in j ai l

. S eve n m onths ofthe 19- m onth del ay w ere attribu table to requ ests for contin u a n c e s by L oera’s l aw yero r hi s co-d efendant’s l aw yer . Loer a’ s l aw yer o bj ec te d to no ne o fthe g o ve r nm en t’ s r eque st s f o rc o nti nuances ( and to none o fthe co- defe nd ant’ s r equests f orco nti nuances e i th er ) unti l he m ove d to dism i ss th e in di ct m en t. Lo er a do es n’ t ar g ue tha t hi s l awy err en der ed hi m i ne ff ecti ve a ss i st an ce i n a sk i ngf o r o r f ai l i ng to obj ect to conti nuances.14 N o. 11

- 3223 W i thno pr ej udi ce fr o m de l aywi th i n the mean i ng gi ven “ prej ud i ce” by D ogg et ta nd o th erc as es ( no prej udice i n partbec ause of the defendant’s acqui esce nce i n the del ay, se e D o gg ett v. U nited Sta tes, sup ra , 505 U
. S. at 6 5 8 ) , a nd n o i nd i c a t i o n o fa nyi nv i di o us o r o the rwis e i m pr o perg r o und o fo r mot iv e f o r pr o tr ac te d de te nt i o n, th er e i s no j us ti fi cati o n f o r v ac at i nga c o nv i ct i o n o n c o nsti tuti onalspeedy tr i algr ounds, wh i c h has the eff ect of acqui tta l

. The S pee d y Tri alA ct, i t i s t rue, i m poses m u c h tigh te r (th ou gh st ill po ro u s) d ea d lin es . B u t it offs et s t h em by allow in g th e jud ge to im p os e fo r th eir vi o l at i o n o nl y the mil d s an ct i o n o fdi smi ss alwi th o ut prej ud i ce, thus per m i tti ng r etr i al

. Given the avai l abi l i ty ofthe A ct, t h er e s houl dn ’ t be m any c ase s i n w hi ch f edera l defendants success fu l l y invoke the speedy t ri al c lau se . Th e c on st itu t i on al c lau se p lay s a gre at er role i n sta te pros ecuti ons, to wh i ch the A ct i s i napp l i cabl e. Loer a has notsho w n that hi s l aw yer w as i neff ecti ve. T he de nial ofhis section 225 5 m otion is therefore A FFI RMED .

5- 7- 13