### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 10167
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee v. J UAN CE S AR MOLI NA- S OL OR I O D efen d a n t- A p p ell a n t

A p p ea l s f

rom the U n i ted S tates D i stri ct C ou rt f or t h e N ort h ern D i st ri ctof T exas
B ef ore K IN G , ST E W A R T an d S O U T H W IC K , C i rcui tJu dg es. C A R L E
. ST E W A R T , C i rcui tJu dg e: I n 1997, def

endant

- appel l antJu an C es arM ol i na- Sol or i o w as c harge d by i ndi c t m entw i t h es c api ng f r om fede r alc ust ody. H e w as ar r es t ed o n t hatc harge i n 2 0 0 7 a n d s h o r tlyth e r e a fte rfile da m o tio n to d is m is s , a r g u in g , in tera lia , a vi o l at i o n o f

hi s co ns t i t ut i o nalri ghtt o sp e e dyt r i al
. The di s t r i c tj udg e de ni e d t he
m o t i o n, a nd M o l i na- So l o r i o pl e d g ui l t y w hi l e r e servi n g t he r i ghtt o a ppe alt he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de ni alo f t he m o t i o n. Fo r t he f o l l o w i ng r e as o ns , w e VA CA TE a nd RE M AND
. I
. F ACT UAL A ND PROCEDURAL HI S TORY In 199 7, M ol i n a- S ol ori o w as convi ct ed i n t h e Sou t h ern D istr i ctof W est V i r gi ni a f

orc ons pi r ac y t o po ss es s w i t h i nt entt o di st r ibut e m ar ij uana. H e w as United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 27, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 10167

2 s e n te n c e d to tw e n ty -o n e m o n th s o f im p r is o n m e n t a n din c a r c e r a te da t t h e B ig Spri ng Pri so n C am p i n B i g Spri ng, Texas
. O n Se p tem b er 28 , 1997, M ol i na- Sol or i o e sc aped. The f ol l ow i ng m ont h, a fede r algr and j ury r et urned a n i n d i c t m e n ta g a i n s th i m f o re s c a p e f

r o m fe d e r a lc u s t o d yi n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S
. C. § 7 5 1 (a ). I n 1999, t he Texas D epar t m entof Pu bl i c Safet y app r ehended M ol i naSo l o r i o , a nd h e w as s ubs e que nt l y s e nt e n c e d t o t hr e e y e ar s o f s t at e i m pr i s o nm e nt for po sse ssion of coca i n e. A ft er M oli n a -So l orio serv ed h is s en ten ce, state a u t h o r i t i e s r e l e a s e d h i m t o I m m i g r a t i o n a n dCu s t o m s En f o r c e m e n t( I CE) aut ho r i t i e s , w ho de po r t e d hi m t o M e xi c o o n Fe br uar y 24 , 2 00 1. The G o ve r nm e nt concedes that, at t h e t i m e of hi s r el ease i n t o I C E cu st ody , t h e federalau t h ori t i es kn ew of t h e federalw arran tagainstM ol i n a- S ol ori o f or hi s es cape. In D ece m b er 2 0 0 6 , IC E a p p reh en d ed M oli n a -So l orio in L a red o, T ex a s. In Ju l y 200 7, he w a s se n te n ced t o f i f t y- on e m on t h s of

federali m pri sonm en tf or ille g a l re e n tr yo f a d e p o r te d a l i e n i n v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6
. S h o r tly t he r e af t e r , he w as a r r e s t e d o n t he e s c ap e c har ge , a nd i n Se pt e m be r2 00 7, he ap pea red bef

ore t h e m agis t rat e j u dg e forh i s arrai gn m en ton the escape cha rge. O n N ov em b er 9 , 20 0 7 , ap p rox i m a tel y tw o m on th s after h i s ar r a i gn m en t, M o lin a -S o lo r io m o v e d t o d is m is s th e e s c a p e in d ic tm e n t, a lle g in g , in tera lia , st atutor y an d consti t u t i on als peedy tr i alvi ol ati on s. Th e G overnm en tres pon ded t hatt he c o ur ts ho ul d d e ny M o l i na- So l o r i o ’ s m o t i o n t o di s m i s s b e c aus e , w hi l e t he l en gth of d elayw a s p resu m p tive l y p reju d i ci a l , h e h a dn ot as serte dh i s ri gh t t o a speed y t ri al , nor al l eged m al i ci ou s gov e rn m e n t ali n t en tt o preven thi m f rom bei ng br ough t to t r i al , and bec ause M ol i na- Sol or i o c oul d notpr ove ac t ual prej u di ce as a resul t of t h e del ay. T h e di st ri ct court den i ed the m ot i on t o di sm i ss “fo rth e re a s o n s s e t fo r th in th e G o v e r n m e n t’s R e s p o n s e .” M o lin a -S o l o r i o t h e n c o n d i t i o n a l l yp l e dg u i l tyto th e in d ic tm e n t, s p e c ific a lly reservi n g t h e ri gh tt o app ealt h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s den i alof h i s m ot i on to di sm i ss.N o. 08- 10167

3 Ats e nt e nc i ng, he r e ur ge d hi s m o t i o n, st at i ng t hatt he r e w as pr ej udi c e due t o t he del ay, argu i n g t h at hi s m an da t ory guidel i n e rang e i n 200 1 w o u ld h ave been eigh teen to t w en ty-f

ou r m on th s i n stea do f th e tw en ty-f ou r to thirty m on th s w i th
w hi c h he w as fac ed. The di s t r i c tc o ur ts e nt e nc e d hi m t o t hi r t y m o nt hs i m pri sonm en t , f

ol l ow ed by a t h ree- year t erm of sup ervise d rel ease. M ol i n a- S ol ori o app eal s. I I
. DI S CUS S I ON A
. Stand ard of

R evi ew In eval u ati n g t h e di st ri ct court’ s concl u si on t h at t h ere w as no viol ati on of M ol i n a- S ol ori o’ s c on st i t u t i on alri gh tto a sp eedytri al , w e revi ew f i n di n gs of

fact fo rcle a re r r o r . Un i t ed S t ate s v. Frye , 3 7 2 F .3d 7 2 9 , 7 3 5 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 4 ). Sur pr i s i ngly, s t i l l uns e t t l e d i n t hi s c i r c ui ti s t he pr o pe rs t and ar d f o rr e vi e w i ng t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e f o u r - fa c t o rb a l a n c i n gt e s tf r o m B ark e rv. Wi ngo , 4 0 7 U .S . 5 1 4 ( 1 9 7 2 ). S ee, e. g. , Un i t ed S t ate s v. Parker , 505 F. 3d 323, 328 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) ( “ T h e B arkerfact ors a re r e v i ew ed ei t h er de no vo orf orc l ear error . ” )
. B ecau se w e concl u de that, un l i ke i n p ri or c ases, t h e st an da rd of revi ew af fec t s t he o ut c om e o f

t hi s appeal , w e m ustdec i de w hi c h one a ppl i es . Al t hough i ti s t h e court , a n d n ott h e parti es, t h at det erm i n es t h e app ropri ate s t an da rd of
r e v ie w , Un i t ed S t ate s v. V on t st een , 9 5 0 F .2d 1 0 8 6 , 1 0 9 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ) ( e n b a n c),
w e no t e t hatnei t herpar t y pr ovi des a s t r ong argum entr egar di ng w hat defer en ce, if

a n y, the d i st ri ctcourt ’ s bal an ci n g of t h e B arker fac t o r s m e r i t s . The G overnm en tst ates t h at “ [ l] egal concl u si on s are revi ew ed ei t h er de no vo or f or cl ear err or, ” echoi n g ou r u n set t l ed st an da rd. I n contr ast, M ol i n a- S ol ori o rel i es o n Parker f

or t h e proposi t i on t h at t h i s c ou rtrevi ew s d e novo t h e l egal concl u si on t h at a S i xth A m en dm en t ri gh t t o a speed y t ri al w as n ot vi ol ated
. H o w e v er, Parker , 505 F
. 3d 328 , expressl y observed the u n resolved st atus of our revi ew of t h e B arker fa c to r s .N o. 08- 10167

The Frye court, like several other s, ultimatelyconclu ded th at it nee d not resolve the 1 que stionbecau se the re sult would be the same under either standard of review. 372 F.3 d at 7 3 6 ; also P

arker , 5 0 5F .3 d at 3 2 8(sa me). Although most ca ses th at this court h as decided regardingthe SixthAmendment ri ght 2 to spe edytri al have also implic ated the SpeedyTrialAct, 1 8 U .S.C. § 3 161 , Molina-S olorio did 4 I n Frye , a fte rd e s c r ib in gth e d iffe r in g s ta te m e n ts th is co u r t h a s m a d e in regard t o revi ew of

t h e B arker fac t or s, w e s ugges t ed w hy d e novo r e v ie w w o u ld l i kel y appl y: [ W ] e n o t e t hat , g e ne r al l y, a di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s b al anc i ng o f fac t o rs, r es ul t i ng i n a d e c i s i o n, a r e a ki n t o , i f no t , c o nc l us i o ns o f l a w, orat l e as tr ul i ngs on m i xe d q ue s t i o ns o f fac ta nd l aw, r e vi e w e d de no vo . E. g. , Uni t e d St at e s v . So ape , 169 F. 3d 257, 267 ( 5t h C i r . ) (c l ai m t hat d en i a lof su b p oe n a req u ests v i olated S i xth A m e n d m en t ri gh t t o c o m pul s o r y pr o c e s s r e vi e w e d de no vo ), cer t . den i ed , 527 U
. S. 1011 ( 1999)
. Acc or di ngl y, i ti s ar guabl e t hatpl enar y r evi ew s houl d be give n a Si xt h Am e ndm e nts pe e dyt r i alde c i s i o n. 37 2 F. 3dat 735
- 36
. Al t ho ugh Frye c o n tin u e dth a t, o n th e o th e rh a n d , th is 1 d e c is io n is fa c t-s p e c ific , w e n o te th e co u r t re v ie w s fa c t-f in d in gfo rcle a re r r o r . I d. W e agree w i t h t h e Frye c o ur t t hat ap pl i c at i o n of t h e B arker test i s at l ea st a m i xed qu est i on of

fact a n d l aw , an d w e hol d that t h e app ropri ate s t an da rd of revi ew of t h e di st ri ct court’ s ap pl i cat i on of t h e B arker fact ors i s de no vo . A ccor d Uni t e d St at e s v . Knight , 5 62 F. 3d 1 314, 1 32 1 ( 11 t h Ci r . 2 00 9) ( “W e r e vi e w de novo t he deni alof

a m ot i on to di sm i ss fora vi ol at i on of t he r i ghtt o as pee dy t r i al
u n d e rth e S ix th A m e n d m e n t.” ); Un i t ed S t a tes v. A rce o , 53 5 F
. 3 d67 9 , 68 4 ( 7 th C i r . 2 0 0 8 ) ( r e v i e w i n ga c o n s t i t u t i o n a ls p e e d yt r i a lc l a i m d e novo an d the di st ri ct c o u r t’s fa c tu a l fin d in g s fo rcle a re r r o r); Un itedS ta tes v. S u tcliffe , 505 F. 3d 944, 9 5 6 (9 th C ir . 2 0 0 7 ) (s a m e ); Un i t e dS t a t e s v . B r o wn , 498 F
. 3d 523 , 530 ( 6th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) (s a m e ); Un i t ed S t ate s v. A l d aco , 477 F. 3 d 1 0 0 8 , 1016 ( 8t h C i r . 2007) (s a m e ). B
. Const i t ut i onalR i ghtt o aSpeedy Tri al S i xt h A m end m ent an d the B arke r Factors 2N o. 08- 10167

not argue a S peedyTrialAct cl aim on appeal. “[A ] claim under the SpeedyTrialAct differs in some significant ways from a clai m under the [S]ixth [A]men dment speedytri al clau se.” F rye , 372 F.3dat 734 (quoting United States v. Mehrmanesh , 6 5 2F .2 d 7 6 6 , 7 6 9( 9 thC ir
. 1 9 8 1 ))
. 5 The Si xt h Am e ndm e nts t at e s t hat“ [ i ] n a l lc r i m i nalpr o s e c ut i o ns , t he a c c u s e d s h a ll e njo yth e rig h t t o a s p e e d y a n dp u b lic tr ia l.” U .S . C ONST . a m e nd. V I. T h e on l y rem ed y for a v i olati on o f th e ri gh t i s d i sm i ssa lof th e ind i ctm en t. B arker , 4 07 U
. S. a t 5 22. A c o ur te va l uat e s a c l ai m e d v i o l at i o n o f t he c o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o a s pe e dyt r i alb y ap pl i c at i o n o f a f o ur - fac t o rb al anc i ng t e s t : (1 ) “l e n g th of d e la y ,” (2 ) “th e re a so n forth e d e la y ,” (3 ) “th e d e fen d a n t’s a sse rti on o f h is r ig h t,” an d ( 4 ) “prej u d i ce to th e d efen d a n t. ” I d. a t5 30
. The court balances t h e fact ors by “w e igh [i n g] t h e f i rstt h ree B arkerfa c to r s . . . ag ai ns ta ny pr ej udi c e s uf fe r e d byt he def

e nda ntdue t o t he de l ayi n pr o s e c ut i o n. O bviousl y, i n t h i s balanci n g, t h e l ess prej u di ce a defen da n texperi en ces, t h e l ess l i k ely i t i s th a t a d en i a lof a sp ee d y trialri gh t w i l lbe f ou n d
. ” Uni t e dS tates v. Se r na- Vi l lar r e al , 3 52 F. 3d2 25 , 2 30 –3 1 ( 5t h Ci r . 2 00 3) (i n t erna lc i t at i o ns o m itted ). W h e n m o r e th a n o n e y e a rh a s p a s s e db e tw e e n in d ic tm e n t a n dtr ia l, “th is c o u r t u n d e r ta k e s a fu ll B arkeran a l ys i s, l oo k i n g to th e fi rst thr e e factors to d ecide w h eth er p reju d i ce w i l lbe pr esu m ed
. ” Parker , 505 F. 3d at328 (i nt er nal ci t ati on s om i t t ed). T h e d el ay of nea rl y t en years i n t h e present c ase unqu es t i onabl y t r i gge r s t hi s c our t ’ s r evi ew of t he r em ai ni ng B arker fa c to r s . M o l i na- So l o r i o a r gue s t hatt he l en gthy de l ay , c o m bi ne d wi t h t he G overnm en t ’ s negl i gen ce and hi s t i m el y assert i on of hi s r i gh t s, w arran t s a fin d in go f p r e s u m e d p r eju d ic e . W e a g r e e . Le ngt h of

D e l ay Af t e rd e t e r mi n i n gt h a tt h e l e n g t h o f d e l a yi s p r e s u mp t iv e l yp r ej u d i c i a l , we con sideri t ag a i n “as on e fa ctor a m on g se ve ra l
. ” D ogget tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 505 U
. S. 6 47 , 6 52 ( 19 92 )
. The l o nge r t he de l ay be t w e e n i ndi c t m e nt and t r i ale xt e ndsN o. 08- 10167

6 beyon d the bare m i n i m u m , the h eaviert h i s fact or w ei gh s i n a defen da n t ’ s favor becau se “ t h e presum pti on t h a t p ret ri aldel ay h as prej u di ced t h e accused i n ten sif i es o ve r ti m e.” Id
. In t h e present case, both pa rt i es agree t h at t h e f i rst fac t orw ei ghs i n M ol i na- Sol or i o’ s favor . W e f i nd i t t o w ei gh heavi l y i n M ol i naS ol ori o’ s favor becau se t h e del ay w as nea rl y t e n y e a rs , t h e l ast ei gh tof w h i ch o c c u r r e d a fte rM o lin a -S o lo r io h a db e e n b a c k in s ta te a n dfe d e r a l cu s to d y . S ee Un ited S ta tes v . B ergfeld , 280 F. 3d 486, 489 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) ( not i ng t hata de l ay o f o v e rfiv e y e a r s w e ig h s “h e a v ily” in d e fe n d a n t’s fa v o r); Un it ed S t at e s v. Car do na , 302 F. 3d 494, 497 ( 5t h C i r . 2002) (f i ndi ng f

i r stfac t or , an “e x tra o rd in a ryd e la yof o v e r five y e a rs ,” to w e igh h e a v il yin d e fen d a n t’ s fa v o r). R e as o n f

o rt he D e l ay U n d e rth e s e c o n d fa c to r , “p r e tr ia l d e la yis o fte n b o th in e v ita b le a n dw h o lly j u sti fi a b l e.” D og

g ett , 50 5 U
. S
. at 65 6
. C ou rts sh ou l d“attach gre a t w eigh t” to c o n s id e r a tio n s s u c h a s “t im e to co lle c t w itn e s s e s a g a in s t t h e a c c u s e d , o p p o s e h is p retrial m oti on s, or, i f h e g oe s i n to h i d i n g, t ra ck h i m do w n . ” I d. P r eju d ic e w ill never be pre sum ed w her e t he G ove r nm ent has “ purs ued [ t he def endant] w i th rea son a b l e d i l i ge n ce from h i s i n d i ctm en t t o h i s a rres t. ” Id
. C on versel y, w h ere t he G ove r nm entac t s i n bad fai t h, del ayi ng p ros ec ut i on i n or dert o g ai n an

“ i m perm i s s ibl e a dv ant ag e a tt r i al , t he de l ayw i l lw e i gh he av i l y i n fav o ro f t he d efen d a n t. ” Se r e na- Vi l lar r e al , 3 52 F
. 3dat232
. H o w e ve r , t hi s ca s e fal l s i n t he

“ m i ddl e g r ound” t hatex i st s “bet w ee n di l i gentpr os ec u ti on a n d bad fai t h del ay a n d de m on strate s n eg l i ge n t pro secu ti on . ” Parker , 5 05 F
. 3d a t3 29. “W h i l e not c o m p e llin gre lie f in e v e r yca s e w h e r e b a d -fa ith d e la yw o u ldm a k e re lie f v ir tu a lly aut o m at i c , ne i t he ris ne gl i ge nc e a ut o m at i c al l y t o l e r ab l e s i m pl y be c aus e t he ac c use d c annot dem ons t r at e exac t l y how i t has prej udi c ed hi m . ” D ogg ett , 505 U
. S
. a t6 57. In m i dd l e g roun d cases, “t h e w ei gh tassi gn ed to t h e fact or i n creases a s th e len gth of th e d elayi n crea ses . ” Se r na- Vi l lar r e al , 3 5 2 F .3 da t 2 3 2
.N o. 08- 10167

7 M o l i na- So l o r i o do e s no ta l l e ge t hatt he G o ve r nm e nt e nga ge d i n ba d fai t h, butt he G ove r nm entadm i t s t hati tc annots how di l i gentpursu i t of M ol i naSo l o r i o . As t he Supr e m e Cour tno t e d i n D og gett : “A lth o u g h n e g lig e n c e is o bv i o us l y t o be w e i ghe d m o r e l i ght l y t han a de l ibe r at e i nt e ntt o ha r m t he a c c u s e d ’ s d e fe n s e , its till fa lls o n t h e w r o n gs id e o f th e d iv id e b e tw e e n a c c e p ta b le a n d u n a c c e p ta b le r e a s o n s fo rd e la y in ga c r im in a l p r o s e c u tio n o n c e it h a s b e g u n .” 50 5 U
. S. a t6 57
. I n D og g ett , t h e defenda n t ’ s “ l ag” betw een i n di ct m en tan d arrest
w a s 8 .5 y e a r s , a n d t h u s t h e “ p o r t io n o f d e la ya t t r ib u t a b le to th e G o v e r n m e n t ’s
n eg l i ge n ce far ex cee d [ed] th e th resh old n ee d ed to state a sp ee d y trialcl a i m . ” I d. a t 6 5 7

– 5 8
. S im ila r ly , th e a u th o r itie s ’n e g lig e n c e in p u r s u in gM o lin a -S o lo r io l as t ed o verei ghtye ar s. Thi s se c ond fa ctor al so w ei ghs heavi l y i n M ol i naS o lo r io ’ s fa v o r . As s e r t i o n of

Right U n d er th e th i rd fa ctor, th e “de fen d a n t’ s a sse rti on o f h i s sp ee d y trialri gh t”
r e c e ive s “ s t r o ng e vi de nt i ar y w e i ght , ” w hi l e “ fai l ur e t o a s s e r tt he r i ghtw i l lm ak e i t dif fi cu l t for a d efen d a n t to p rov e th a t he w a s d en i ed a sp ee d y trial
. ” B arker , 407 U
. S
. at 531 –32
. Th i s court h as n ot ed t h at “ m ere assert i on ” of t h e ri gh tdoes no ta ut o m at i c al l y c aus e t hi s fac t o rto w ei gh i n ade fe nda nt ’ s fav o r , a nd a defenda n tw h o w ai t s t oo l on g t o asser thi s r i gh tw i l lha ve h is silen ce w ei gh ed a g a in s t h im
. E
. g. , Parker , 505 F
. 3d at 329 –33 0 (w ei gh i n g t h i rd fact or agai n st def endantw hen he w ai t ed unt i lei ghtm ont hs af ter i n d i ctm entt o f

i r stgive an i ndi c at i o n t hathe w i s he d t r i alt o pr o c e e d)
. Thi s c o ur ta s s e s s e s t he t o t al i t y o f t he pr o c e e di ngs i n c o ns i de r i ng t he a m o unto f t i m e tha t pa s s e d b e f o r e a de fe nda nt s h o u ld h a v e r a i s e d h i s s p e e d ytr ia l rig h ts . Se ei d. at 330 (w ai t i n g t ot alof f o ur t e e n m o nt hs , de spi t e aw aren ess of i n di ct m en t , bef

ore af f i r m ative ly as s e r t i ng c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h t t o s p e e d ytr ia l w e ig h e da g a in s t d e fe n d a n t). I n t hi s c as e, t hi s fac t orpr es ent s a c l os e i ss ue. M ol i na- Sol or i o a r gues t hat he as se r t ed hi s spe edy t r i alri ghti n 1999, w hen he t ol d aut hor i t i es t hathe hadN o. 08- 10167

8 escaped f

rom federalpri son i n 199 7. M ol i n a- S ol ori o does not c i t e, an d w e cann ot fi n d , an y ca se fi n d i n g su ch a n a sse rti on s u ff i ci en t to cl ea rl y i n vo k e th e righ t t o a s p e e d ytr ia l. H o w e v e r , th e r e is n o e v id e n c e in th e re c o r dth a t M o lin a -S o lo r io
w a s a w a r e o f th e ch a r g e s p e n d in ga g a in s t h im s u c h th a t h e w o u ldh a v e b e e n in a p o s i t i o n t o a f

f i r m a t iv e l y a s k t he a ut ho r i t i e s a b o ut a fe d e r a l t r i a l i n 1999. W h i l e h e li k ely cou l d h a ve s u rm i sed th a t, a s a fu gitive , h e w ou l dbe bro u gh t t o j us t i c e o nc e a ppr e he nde d, t he l aw do e s no tr e qui r e M o l i na- So l o r i o t o a s s um e t he e x iste n ce of, an d a sk fora sp e e d ytria l on , a ch a rg e h e is n o t a ctu a ll ya w a re of. In stea d , w e fi n d fa ctor th ree sa ti sfi ed byM oli n a -So l orio’ s 20 0 7 m oti on to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t, b e c a u s e th e re c o r dd o e s n o t s h o w th a t M o lin a -S o lo r io knew of t he e sc ape c harge be f or e hi s 2007 ar r es t . Al t hough w e have s ai d t hat

“ [ a] m ot i on f

or di sm i ss ali s not evi den ce t h at t h e defen da n tw an t s t o be t ri ed p rom p tl y,” Frye , 489 F
. 3d at 212 , t h at w as i n t h e context of a defend an taw are of t he pendi ng c harge s and st i l lw ai t i ng t o m ake an af f i r m at ive r eques tt hatt r i al go f o r w ar d. I n co nt r as t , t he Supr e m e Cour tr ul e d i n D og gett t hatt he de fe nda nt s h o u ld “n o t [ ] b e ta x e d fo r in v o k in gh is s p e e d ytr ia l rig h t o n lya fte rh is a r r e s t,”
w he r e t he e vi de nce s ho w e d t hathe w as no ta w ar e , pr i o rt o hi s a r r e s t , o f t he c h a r g e s p e n d in ga g a i n s t h i m . D og gett , 505 U
. S. at653. I n t hi s c as e, M ol i naS o lo r io s im ila r lys h o u ld n o t b e “t a x e d ” fo rin v o k in gh is s p e e d ytr ia l a fte rh is a rres t beca u se h e d i d n ot k n ow of th e ind i c tm e n t p e n d i n g a ga i n st h i m . In c o nt r as tt o t he de fe nda nti n D og gett , w h o p r e s e n te dtr ia l te s tim o n ya b o u t h is la ck of k n ow l ed ge tha t w en t un reb u tted b y th e G ov ern m en t, M oli n a -So lo r io en t ered a cond i t i on al gu i l t y pl ea an d t h u s di d not h ave a tri ali n w h i ch w i t n esses t e s t i f i e d t h a th e w a s n o ta w a r e o f t h e i n d i c t me n ta g a i n s th i m. Thi s c o ur tha s pr e vi o us l y c o ns t r ue d al ac k o f e vi de nc e r e ga r di ng w he n a d efen d a n t k n e w o f h i s i n d i ctm en t i n fa vo r of t h e d efen d a n t. InCar do na , th is c o ur tr e as o ne d t hat“ [ t ] he r e [w as ] no e vi de nc e t hat[t he de fe nda nt ] kne w o f t he c h a r g e s a g a in s t h im u n til h is a r r e s t” a n d “t h u s th is fa c to rw e ig h [e d ] h e a v ilyinN o. 08- 10167

9 [ t h e defen da n t ] ’ s favor. ” 302 F
. 3d at 498
. In th a t case, t h e defen da n tha d n ot speci f i c al l y be e n q ue s t i o ne d a tt r i ala bo utw he n he l e ar ne d t hathe ha d b e en in d ic te d
. I

d. a t 4 9 8 n .2 ; se e a lso B ergfeld , 280 F
. 3d at 490 (rul i n g t h at t h e t h i rd f ac t o rw ei gh ed i n defen da n t ’ s favor becau se he on l y l earn ed ab ou tt he i ndic t m e nt a ga i n st h i m a ft er his a rres t)
. M oli n a -So l orio’ s m oti on to dism i ss i s su ff i ci en t t o s at i s f y fac t o rt hr e e b e c aus e , s i m i l art o t he de fe nda nti n Ca r d o na , th e rec ord c o nt ai ns no e vi de nc e t hathe w as a w ar e o f t he i n di ct m en t a ga i ns thi m . The G overnm en tha s not presen t ed an y evi den ce t h at M ol i n a- S ol ori o w as aw are of h i s i n di ct m en tp ri or to l ate sum m er 20 07 w h en h e w as arres t ed an d arrai gn ed o n it. H e m o v e d to d is m is s s o o n a fte rh is a r r a ig n m e n t o n th e ch a r g e . Ther e f o r e , w e f i nd t hatM o l i na- So l o r i o has s uf f i c i e nt l y e s t ab l i s he d t hathe assert ed h i s r i gh t s, an d thi s fact or w ei gh s i n M ol i n a- S ol ori o’ s favor. P rej u dice The f o ur t h fact or i s t he pr ej udi c e s uf fe r e d b y t he de fe nda ntdue t o t he del ay, and or di nari l y t he bur den i s on t he defendantt o de m ons t r at e a c t ual p r eju d ic e . Se r na- Vi l lar r e al , 352 F
. 3d at 230 –31
. B u tw h e re th e f i rstt h ree fac t or s t oge t herw ei gh heavi l y i n t he defen d ant ’ s favor , w e m ay c onc l ude t hat t he y w ar r anta pr e s um pt i o n o f pr ej udi c e , r e l i e vi ng t he de fe nda nt o f hi s b ur de n. Id
. A l t hough fac t ort hre e do es notw ei gh as heavi l y as i tdi d i n pri orc as es t hat h ave f ou n d a con st i t u t i on alspeedyt ri al ri gh t vi ol ati on , t h e l en gthy d el ay cau sed byt he G o ve r nm e nt ’ s ne gl i ge nc e w e i ghs m o r e he av i l y t han t hat fac t o r has i n o ur pr i o rc a s e s . T h e r e a s o n f o rt h e d e l a y , Go v e r n m e n tn e g l i g e n c e , a l s o we i ghs h e a v ilyin M o lin a ’ s fa v o rd u e to th e “p r o tr a c te d n e s s o f th e d e l a y .” B e a r in gin
m i n d that t h e B arker i nqui r y i s “ a di f f i c ul ta nd s e ns i t ive b al anc i ng pr o c e s s , ” a nd a c ons t i t ut i onaldepr ivat i on m ay be f ound w i t hout m ec hani c alfac t or - c ount i ng, Nelson v. Harg ett , 9 8 9 F. 2d 847, 851 ( 5t h C i r . 1993) ( quot i ng B arker , 4 07 U
. S. at 533) (i n t erna lqu ot ati on m arks om i t t ed), w e con cl u de t h at toget h er the f i rst t h ree B arker fact ors w ei gh h eavily i n M ol i n a- S ol ori o’ s favor, an d h e i s r el i evedN o. 08- 10167

Molina -Solorio does argue that he suffered prej udic e, but because we determineth at 3 the fourth Barker factorshould be presumed, it is unnecessaryfor us todeterminewhether he wo uld s uff

icie ntly es tablishthat fac torindep ende ntly. I ndee d, the article cited by the Supre me Court discusses how, at an egregiou s le ngth 4 of delay , prej udic e shoul d bepre sumed and the bur den shifte d to the state t o p r ov e the negative b y affirmativelydemon stratingth at there was no prej udic e to defendant as a result of the delay. Uviller, 7 2 C OL UM . L. R EV . at13 94. Although the bur den shift might re quire the s t at e t o p r ov e facts inaccessib le to it, e.g ., that no evi dencefor the defen se was lost or im paired , id ., th at isthe point: Realistically, prej udic e lies beyond the capacityof either si de t o p rove or di sp rove, exceptinth e rarein st ancewhere aknowndef en sewitn es s of

known compete nce actu ally disappe ars or reports a recent i mpairment of memory , an d no priortesti monyfrom him is available . Therefore, the shift of b urdenactually permits the presumption of pre ju dice to prevailonthe i ssue. S inc e th at presumption is well-founded, however, j usticeis served. Id
. at13 94-9 5. The presumption of pre ju dice move s thecourt fro m focu sing onthe defendant and to instea d “merelyfocu s[ing] attentiononother elements whereinimproprietyor ju stificationmaybemoremeanin gfullydiscer ne d .” I d
. at 1395. Thisprovid espers uas ive 10 of t h e bu rden of

dem on st rat i n g act u alprej u di ce. Se eCar do na , 302 F. 3d at498- 3 9 9
. Eve n wi t h s uc h pr e s um pt i o n, t he G o ve r nm e ntm ays t i l lpr e va i li f t he presum pti on of

prej u di ce i s “ extenu ated, as b y t h e defen da n t ’ s acquies cence” or “pe rsu a sively reb u tted.” I d. at499 ( quot i ng D og gett , 505 U
. S. at658) (i nt er nal q u o ta t i o n m a r k s o m itt e d ). N e ith e ris th e ca s e h e r e . F ir s t, M o lin a -S o lo r io d id notac qui es c e b ec ause , as d i scu ssed abo ve, he as se r t ed hi s r i ght s onc e he w as a w a r e o f th e p e n d in gch a r g e . S e c o n d , th e G o v e r n m e n t h a s n o t p e r s u a s iv e ly rebu t t ed t h e presum pti on of prej u di ce, al t h ou gh i t does argu e i n re b u tta l of M o lin a -S o lo r io ’ s a tt e m p ts to d e m o n s tr a t e a c tu a l p r eju d ic e . D og getts pe ak s d i rectly to th e poin t: “W h i l e t h e G ov ern m en t a b l y cou n ters D og ge tt’ s eff orts to dem on st rat e parti cul ari zed tria l prej u di ce, i tha s not, an d p robably c ou l d n ot h a v e , a f

fir m a tiv e lyp r o v e d th a t t h e d e la yle ft h is a b ilityto d e fe n dh im s e lf uni m pai r ed. ” 505 U
. S. at 65 4 n . 4 (c i t i ng H
. R i c hard U vi l l er , B ar kerv. W i ngo : S p ee dy Tria l G ets aF a st S h uffle , 72 C OL UM . L. R EV . 1 3 7 6 , 1 3 9 4 -1 3 9 5 (19 7 2 )). 4N o. 08- 10167

guidanc e as t o how we should give effect to the Supre me C ourt’s phrase “persua sively rebutted.” Eve n with the ge nerous reading of its brief, to say that the Governme nt has met its b urdeninthis ca se would b e torobthe Doggett pr es ump tio n of any eff icac y. 11 B e c a u s e w e d e t e r m i n e t h a tt h e f i r s tt h r e e fa c t o r s c o m b i n e t o w e i g h h e a v ily i n M oli n a -So l orio’ s fa vo r, ex cu singM oli n a -So l orio of t h e n e e d to d em on strate ac t ualprej udi c e, and t he G ove r nm enthas notper suas ively r ebut t ed t hat p r e s u m p tio n o f p r eju d ic e , s e eCar do na , 302 F. 3d at 499, w e ho l d t hatt he pr et r i al de l ayv i o l at e d M o l i na- So l o r i o ’ s Si xt h A m e ndm e ntri ghtt o a sp e e dyt r i al
. “ [ T] he on l y p oss ib l e rem ed y[, ]” de sp i te its se ve ri ty, i s d i sm i ssa lof th e ind i ctm en t. B arker , 407 U
. S. at521. I I I
. C ONC L US I ON Fort he f

o r e go i ng r e as o ns , w e v ac at e t he j udg m e nto f c o nvi c t i o n a nd
r e m a n d w ith in s tr u c tio n s to d is m is s th e in d ic tm e n t.N o. 08- 10167

12 K I N G , C i r c ui tJudge, di ss ent i ng: I respect f

u l l y di ssent f

rom the court’ s d eci si on to va cat e t h e j u dg m en tof c o n v i c t i o n a n dr e ma n d wi t h i n s t r u c t i o n s t o d i s mi s s t h e i n d i c t me n t . I n myv i e w, t h e governm en t h as successf u l l y rebu t t ed M ol i n a- S ol ori o’ s presum ed p rej u di ce. I a gr e e w i t h t he m aj o r i t y t hatpr ej udi c e m ayb e pr e s um e d he r e . Fi r s t , t he egregi ou s l en gth of

del ay i n t h i s case— n earl y t en years— both t ri ggers t h e f ou rfa c t o r a n a l y s i s f

r o m B ark e rv. Wi ngo , 4 07 U
. S. 5 14 ( 19 72 ) , a nd wei ghs
s ig n ific a n tlyin M o lin a -S o lo r io ’ s fa v o r . S e c o n d , th e re a s o n fo rd e la yp r o b a b ly
r es ult s f

r om go ver nm entnegl i genc e, al t hough i ti s hard t o de sc r ibe as

“ negl i gent” w hatm ay have be en an af f i r m at ive dec i si on n otto pros ec ut e M ol i naSo l o r i o b utt o de po r thi m i ns t e ad
. Thi r d, M o l i na- So l o r i o s ho ul d notbe “ t ax e d” fo rn o t k n o w in go f h is in d ic tm e n t (a n dn o t a s s e r tin gh is d e s ir e fo ra s p e e d ytr ia l)
u n til h e w a s a r r e s t e d
. D ogget tv. Un i t ed S t ate s , 5 0 5 U .S . 6 4 7 , 6 5 4 (1 9 9 2 ); see als o Uni t e d St at e s v . Car do na , 3 0 2 F .3d 4 9 4 , 4 9 8 (5t h C ir. 2 0 0 2 ). M y pr i m ar y di sa gr ee m entw i th th e m aj or i t y i s t hatt he go ver nm enthas
r ebut t ed t he pr es um pt i on o f pr ej udi c e b y s how i ng t hatM ol i na- Sol or i o has suf fer ed no ac t ualpr ej udi c e a nd t hus no Si xt h A m endm ents pee dy t r i al vi o l at i o n. I n D og

g ett , t h e Su prem e C ou rtst ated t h at t h e defen da n ti s not e n tit le d to re lie f “w h e n th e p r e s u m p t i o n o f p r eju d ic e . . . is
. . . p er su a siv ely rebutt ed
. ” 5 05 U
. S. a t6 58 ( e m pha s i s a dde d, i nt e r nalf o o t no t e s o m i t t e d, a nd ci tati on om i tted). T h ou gh the go ve rn m en t’ s br i ef do es n ot d en om i n a te i ts ar gum entas a “ r ebut t al” of pres um pt ive prej udi c e, i tar gues per suas ively t hat t h e del ay i n bri n gi n g M ol i n a- S ol ori o t o t ri aldoes not im p li ca t e t h e t h ree key i nt e r e s t s t hat“ t he s pe e dy t r i alr i ghtw as de s i gne d t o pr o t e c t” : ( 1) “ t o pr e ve nt o ppr e s s ive pr e t r i ali nc ar c e r at i o n” ; ( 2) “ t o m i ni m i z e an xi et y andc o nc e r n o f t he a c c u s e d ”; a n d ( 3 ) “t o lim it t h e p o s s ib ilityth a t t h e d e fe n s e w ill b e im p a ir e d .” B arker , 407 U
. S
. at 532
. R egard i n g t h e “ m ostserious” of t h e t h ree i n t erest s, M ol i n a- S ol ori o does not even argu e t h at hi s defen se w as i m pa i red, nor coul d h e.N o. 08- 10167

13 Id
. H e m a k e s n o cla im th a t h is a b ilityto d e fe n da g a in s t t h e ch a r g e s p e c ifie d in t he i ndi c t m ent

— spe c i f i c al l y, es c api ng f

r om t he B i g Spri ng Pri son C am p— has been i m pa i red by the am ou n tof t i m e t h at el ap sed af t er t h e i n di ct m en t . A s f or t he o t hert w o i nt er es t s, agai n, nei t heri s eve n cl ai m ed byM ol i na- Sol or i o t o have been i n f

ri n ged
. M ol i n a- S ol ori o’ s pri m ary assert i on — t h at had h e been i n carcer ated f

or es cape, he m i gh tnot hav e com m i t t ed the sub sequ en tcr i m es of possessi on of a control l ed s u bstance (cocai n e) an d i l l egal reentry and w ou l d n ot h a ve be en ch a rg ed w i th the resu l ti n g crim i n a lh i storyp oin ts— n ot on l y fail s to de m o ns t r at e pr ej udi c e ; i ti s , a s t he g o ve r nm e nts ay s , “ pr e po s t e r o us . ” H i s s e c o nd assert i on — t h at Texa s “ m i gh tha ve been w i l l i n g t o run hi s s t ate s en t en ce of t h ree years i m pri sonm en tf or p o ss e ss i on of

a contr ol l ed su bstance .
. . concurrent or pa r t i al l y c o nc ur r e ntw i t h hi s fe de r alc har ge o f e s c ap e ”

— i s pur e s pe c ul at i o n. Ther e i s no r e as o n, g r o unde d i n t he Si xt h Am e ndm e nto ro t he r w i s e , w hy M ol i n a- S ol ori o oug h tnot t o go t o pri son f or es cape.