# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
No. 1 6- 16 96

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _
Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ro bi n M . Sim s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __
Su bm it te d: Nov em

be r 16 , 20 16 Fil ed : Fe br ua ry

2, 2 01 7 [Pu bl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __
Befo re RI LEY, Chi ef J ud ge , W OLLMAN and KELLY , Cir cu it Ju dg es

.

__ __ __ __ __ __
KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

Thi s is Ro bi n Si m s’ se co nd ti m e be fo re th e co ur t. On th e go v e r n men t ’s
in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al in 20 14
, we fo un d th at th e di st ric t c o u r t ’s ex cl us io n of DNA 1

The Hon or ab l e D e a n W hi pp le , Un it ed St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e W es te rn 1 Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.ev id en ce as a sa nc ti on fo r th e go ve rn m en t’s la t e d i s c l o su re was no t an ab us e of

di sc ret io n. The cas e th en pr oc eed ed to tri al

, an d a jury co nv ic te d Si m s on al l co un ts

. No w , in Si m s’ po st -jud gm en t ap pe al

, he arg ue s th at th e de la y crea te d by th e
go ve rn m en t’s int erl oc ut or y ap pe al was a vi ol at io n o f hi s Six th Am en dm en t rig ht to

a sp eed y tri al . Fin di ng no su ch vi ol at io n, we af fir m

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

W e se t fo rth a de ta il ed de sc rip ti on of t he fact s le ad in g up to tri al in ou r pr io r
op in io n, Uni te d St at es v. Si m s (Si m s I), 77 6 F.3 d 58 3 (8 th Ci r. 20 15 ), whi ch we in co rp or at e h erei n. Re le va nt fact s ar e rep eat ed he re fo r co nt ex t.

Si m s was arre st ed on Ju ne 24
, 20 13
, an d an in it ia l in di ct m en t fo ll owe d on Ju ly
17
, 20 13

. Pu rs ua nt to a su pe rced in g in di ct m en t, Si m s was ch arg ed wit h th ree co un ts
of co ns p i r i n g t o di st rib ut e, di st rib ut in g, an d ai di ng an d ab et ti ng th e di st rib ut io n of
he ro in ; an d o n e c o u n t o f be in g a fel on in po ss es si on of a fir earm

. Dur in g th e fir st

sc he du li ng co nf

eren ce in Aug us t 20 13
, th e di st ric t co ur t se t tri al fo r Apr il 28
, 20 14
, pu rs ua n t t o Si m s’ req ue st

. It al so or de red th e go ve rn m en t to di sc lo se al l ex pe rt

ev id en ce “ no lat er t ha n s ev en da y s b efo re t he pre tri al co nf eren ce.”

Fi ve da y s aft er th e pr et ria l co nf eren ce an d si x da y s be fo re tri al

, th e go ve rn m en t
fir st no ti fie d Si m s of it s in te nt io n to cal l a fo ren si c an al y st to te st ify th at Si m s was th e

so u r c e o f “ th e m ajor it y of th e DNA on th e gu n” th at was se iz ed fro m hi m

. Si m s

m ov ed to ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce as un ti m el y an d th e go ve rn m en t res po nd ed by

se ek in g a co nt in ua nc e o f t h e tri al

, whi ch Si m s op po se d. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d
Si m s’ m ot io n, excl ud ed th e DNA evi de nc e fro m tri al , and de ni ed th e go ve rn m en t’s

m ot io n fo r a co nt in ua nc e.

On Apr il 25
, 20 14
, th e go ve rn m en t fil ed an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

, arg ui ng th at
th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e DNA ev id en ce was to o ha rs h of a sa nc ti on an d it

-2

-sh ou ld ha ve co nt in ue d th e tri al in st ead

. Afte r fil in g, th e go ve rn m en t so ug ht an d

rece iv ed th ree ex te ns io ns of th e de ad li ne to fil e it s op en in g br ie f, on e ex te ns io n of it s
rep ly de ad li ne , an d two ex te ns io ns of th e fil in g da te fo r a pe ti ti on fo r reh eari ng whi ch

was ne ve r fil ed

. Si m s so ug ht reco ns id erat io n of th e co ur t’s fir st gr an t of an ex te ns io n in pa rt on th e gr ou nd th at he wan te d to go to tri al

. Rec on si de rat io n was de ni ed

. On
Ja nu a r y 1 4
, 2 0 1 5
, we is su ed ou r op in io n in Si m s I affi rm in g th e di st ric t co ur t’s

ex cl us io n o f th e DNA ev id en ce as a sa nc ti on fo r th e go ve rn m en t’s n on -co m pl ia nc e wit h t he sch ed ul in g o rd er.

Fi rs t, in Si m s I
, w e h e l d th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in

co nc lu di ng th at th e g o v e r nm en t ha d act ed in reck le ss di sr eg ard of th e di sc ov ery de ad li ne

. 77 6 F.3 d at 58 6. W e no te d th at al th ou gh th e gu n was or ig in al ly su bm it te d

to th e cri m e la b fo r DNA te st in g in su m m er 20 13
, th e an al y st di d no t pe rfo rm te st in g be cau se sh e m is ta ke nl y b e l i e v e d s he di d no t ha ve Si m s’ DNA on fil e to us e as a

co m pa rat or

. Id

. at 58 4. Sh e em ai le d th e de te ct iv e on th e cas e an d in fo rm ed hi m th at
sh e c o u l d n ot m ak e th e co m pa ris on , bu t th e de te ct iv e di d no t res po nd

. Id

. Two
week s be fo re tri al

, on Apr il 1 4
, 2 0 1 4
, th e go ve rn m en t co nt act ed th e la b to in qu ire
ab ou t th e DNA te st in g, an d di sc ov eri ng th at no th in g ha d be en do ne , req ue st ed

ex pe di te d te st in g. Id

. At a pr et ria l co nf eren ce th ree da y s la te r, th e go ve rn m en t st at ed
it was “ de fin it el y read y fo r tri al ,” an d di d no t m en ti on th e DNA ev id en ce or fo ren si c

ex pe r t

. I d

. Th e go ve rn m en t rece iv ed th e DNA rep or t on Apr il 21
, 20 14
, an d
di sc lo se d it an d it s ex pe rt to Si m s an d th e co ur t th e fo l l o w in g da y

. Id

. Afte r Si m s

m ov ed to ex cl ud e th e fo ren si c ex pe rt, th e go ve r nm en t ad de d two su pp le m en ta l
fo ren si c sp eci al is ts to it s wit ne ss li st jus t fo ur da y s be fo re tri al

. Id

. at 58 5. The co ur t
fo u n d th es e fact s “ co nf

irm[ed] th e di st ric t co ur t’s co nc lu si on th at th e go ve rn m en t
sh owe d m or e th an jus t n eg li ge nc e in m is si ng th e d is co ve ry de ad li ne .” Id . at 5 86

.

The Si m s I co ur t al so ag reed wit h th e di st ric t co ur t th at th e la te di sc lo su r e
pr ejud ic ed Si m s be cau se “[t ]h e DNA ev id en ce wou ld ha ve pl ay ed a ke y pa rt in
Si m s’s pr os ecu ti on on th e fir earm ch arg e” an d Si m s ha d no op po rtu ni ty to rev ie w or

-3

-ch al le ng e it

. I d

. The di st ric t co ur t reject ed th e go ve rn m en t’s su gg es te d le ss er

sa nc ti on of a co nt in ua n c e i n p a rt be cau se “ th e Defen da nt do es no t wan t to fu rth er de la y res ol ut io n of th is cas e, an d a de la y sh ou ld no t be fo rced on hi m be cau se of th e
go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t.” W e he ld th at th e di st ric t co ur t di d n o t a b u s e it s di sc ret io n in refu si ng to co nt in ue th e tr ia l. Id

.

Pri or to th e is su an ce of th e m an da te in Si m s I, on Feb ru ary 4, 20 15
, Si m s fil ed

a pr o se m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t as a vi ol at io n of hi s sp eed y t r i a l r i g h t s, whi ch th e di st ric t co ur t de ni ed fo r la ck of juri sd ic ti on

. Afte r th e m an da t e i s s u e d,
Si m s, th ro ug h co un se l, m ov ed to di sm is s on sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s. The di st ric t co ur t
de ni ed th e m ot io n wi th ou t d is cu ss io n.

A ju r y t r i a l be ga n on May 11
, 20 15
, an d Si m s was co nv ic te d on al l co un ts

. Si m s no w ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of hi s m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t,

arg ui ng th e go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a sp eed y tri al by fil in g

an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al of th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ci si on to ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce.

II . Dis cus si on

“ [W] e rev ie w th e di st ric t co ur t’s fin di ng s of fact on whe th e r a d e f e nd an t’s [Si xt h Am en dm en t] rig ht to a sp eed y tri al was vi ol at ed fo r cl ear erro r bu t rev ie w it s le ga l co nc lu si on s de no vo .” Uni te d St at es v. W eari ng , 8 37 F.3 d 9 0 5 , 9 09 (8 th Ci r. 20 16 ) (s eco nd al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ald aco , 47 7 F.3 d 10 08
, 10 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 07 )). The Su pr em e Co ur t ha s id en ti fie d fo ur fact or s, kn own as th e Bark er fact or s, to an al y ze whe th er a de fen da nt ’s Si xt h Am en dm en t sp eed y tri al rig ht
ha s be en vi ol at ed : “ (1 ) whe th er de la y be fo re tri al was un co m m on ly lo ng ; (2 ) whe th er th e go ve rn m en t or th e cri m in al de fen da nt is m or e to bl am e fo r th e de la y ; (3 ) whe th er, in du e co ur se , th e de fen da nt as se rte d hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al ; an d (4 ) whe th er he

su ffer ed pr ejud ic e as a res ul t of th e de la y .” Ald aco , 47 7 F.3 d at 10 19 (ci ti ng Dog ge tt

-4

-v. Uni te d St at es , 50 5 U.S. 64 7, 65 1 (1 99 2) ); se e Bark er v. W in go , 40 7 U.S. 51 4, 53 0

(1 97 2)

.

1. Le ng th o f Del ay

“ [T]he Si xt h Am en dm en t rig ht to a sp eed y tri al at ta ch es at th e ti m e of arre st or in di ct m en t, whi ch ev er co m es fir st , an d co nt in ue s un ti l th e tri al co m m en ces .”
W eari ng , 8 37 F.3 d at 90 9 (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d S ta te s v . S pr ou ts , 28 2 F .3d 10 37 , 10 42 (8t h C ir. 2 00 2) ). Si m s was arres te d on Ju ne 24 , 20 13 , and hi s tri al be ga n on May 11
, 20 15 ; th us , th e de la y was twen ty-two an d a ha lf m on th s. Su ch

a de la y is “ pr es um

pt iv el y pr ejud ic ia l” an d st ret ch es be y o n d t he “ ba re m in im um ”

ne ed ed to tri gg er jud ic ia l ex am in at io n of th e rem ai ni ng fact or s. Uni te d St a t e s v. W al ke r, 84 0 F.3 d 47 7, 48 5 (8t h Cir. 20 16 ) (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. DeGarm o, 45 0
F.3 d 36 0, 36 4– 6 5 ( 8 t h C i r. 20 06 )); se e Dog ge tt , 50 5 U.S. at 65 2 n.1 (n ot in g th at
lo wer co ur ts ha d g e n e ral ly fo un d “ de la y ‘pres um pt iv el y pr ejud ic ia l’ at le as t as it

ap pr oa ch es on e y ear” ); Uni te d St at es v. Sh ep ard

, 46 2 F.3d 84 7, 86 4 (8t h Cir. 20 06 ) (h ol di ng sev en te en -m on th de la y “ co m pe ls us to lo ok to th e o th er fa ct or s” ).

The go ve rn m en t arg ue s th at we sh ou ld on ly co ns id er th e de la y to be twel ve an d

a ha lf m on th s be cau se th e rem ai nd er of th e de la y was at tri bu ta bl e to Si m s’ req ue st fo r

a co nt in ua nc e of th e tri al da te

. Howev er, th e “ res po ns ib il it y fo r th e de la y ” sh ou ld be

co ns id ered un de r th e se co nd fact or , no t th e fir st

. Uni te d St at es v. Eren as -Lun a, 56 0
F.3 d 77 2, 77 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ). In an y ev en t, ev en th e twel ve -an d- a-h al f-m on th de la y

wou ld be su ffi ci en t to co ns id e r t h e r em ai ni ng fact or s. W al ke r, 84 0 F.3 d at 48 5 (h ol di ng “ de l a y o f ap pr ox im at el y el ev en an d a ha lf m on th s be twee n W al ke r’s
in di ct m en t an d h is tri al m eet s t he th res ho ld , bu t b arel y ”).

-5

-2. Rea so n fo r Del ay

“ As to th e se co nd fact or , th e co ur t m us t de te rm in e whe th er th e go ve rn m en t or th e de fen da nt was ‘m or e to bl am e’ fo r th e de la y .” W al ke r, 84 0 F.3 d at 48 5 (q uo ti ng Uni te d St at es v. Ro dr ig ue z– Vale nc ia

, 75 3 F.3 d 8 0 1
, 80 6 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 )). Si m s ad m it s th at ap pr ox im at el y te n m on th s of th e de la y is at tri bu ta bl e to hi m , as he in it ia ll y
req ue st ed a co nt in ua nc e of th e tri al da te

. The refo re, th e qu es ti on is whe th er th e
go ve rn m en t is bl am ewo rth y fo r th e rem ai ni ng twel ve -an d- a-h al f-m on th de la y du rin g whi ch it so ug ht an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al o f th e di st ric t co ur t’s ex cl us io n of th e
go ve rn m en t’s DNA ev id en ce.

In Uni te d St at es v

. Lo u d H a wk, 47 4 U.S. 30 2 (1 98 6)

, th e Su pr em e Co ur t
ack no wled ge d th at de la y cau se d by in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al can be th e ba si s fo r a Si xt h
Am en dm en t sp eed y tri al cl ai m

. See id

. at 31 6 (“ Und er Bark er, de la y s in br in gi ng th e

c a se to tri al cau se d by th e Gov ern m en t’s in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al m ay be we i g h e d i n de te rm in in g whe th er a d e f e n d a n t ha s su ffer ed a vi ol at io n of hi s rig ht s to a sp eed y tri al .”). Alt h o u g h “ an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al by t he Gov ern m en t or di na ril y is a va li d

reas on th at jus ti fie s d el ay ,” th e co ur t no ne th el es s sh ou ld co ns id er t he “ pu rp os e an d

r e a so na bl en es s” of th e ap pe al by ex am in in g: “ th e st ren gt h of th e Gov ern m en t’s

po si ti on on th e ap pe al ed is su e, th e im po rta nc e of th e is su e in th e po st ur e of th e cas e,

an d— in so m e cas es —t he ser io us ne ss of t he cri m e.” Id . at 3 15

.

Si m s arg ue s th at th e in te rlo cu to r y a pp eal was ne ces sa ry on ly be cau se th e
go ve rn m en t reck le ss ly di sr eg ard ed di sc ov ery de ad li ne s an d un reas on ab ly de la y ed in

pr oc ur in g a nd pro du ci ng th e DNA ev id en ce. The go ve rn m en t was aware th at Si m s

o p p o s e d fu rth er co nt in ua nc e of hi s tri al

, bu t, Si m s arg ue s, it no ne th el es s so u g h t
in te rlo cu to ry rev ie w an d si x ex te ns io ns of it s fil in g de ad li ne s on ap pe al

. In fact

, th e
go ve rn m en t’s br ie f on in t erl oc ut or y ap pe al so ug ht a co nt in ua nc e of th e tri al da te , ag ai ns t Si m s’ wis he s, to al lo w S i ms mo re ti m e to ex am in e th e la te -p ro du ced

ev id en ce. Acco rd in g to Si m s, th e ap pe al was m eri tl es s, an d th e go ve rn m en t pu rs ue d

-6

-th e DNA ev id en ce so le ly to en s u re a co nv ic ti on on th e fel on -in -p os se ss io n ch arg e

be cau se it carr ie d th e ha rs he st se nt en ce. The go ve rn m en t r e s p o n ds th at th e DNA

ev i d e n c e w as ke y to pr ov in g th at Si m s kn owi ng ly po ss es se d th e fir earm , an d,
al th ou gh th e d is tri ct co ur t was ul ti m at el y affi rm ed , it s ap pe al was n ot m eri tl es s.

Alt ho ug h th e go ve rn m en t’s co nd uc t d e mo ns tra te s so m e in di ffer en ce to ward
Si m s’ in te nt to go to tri al fo rth wit h, th e r e i s n o e v i de nc e of “ ba d fai th or di la to ry
pu rp os e on th e Gov ern m en t’s pa rt” in pu rs ui ng in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Id

. at 31 6. W e
ag ree wit h Si m s th at se ek in g si x ex te ns io ns in th e pr o s e c u t i o n of an in te rlo cu to ry
ap pe al de sp it e Si m s’ in si st en ce on a pr om pt tri al is un reas on ab le

, pa rti cu la rly whe re th e ap pe al was pr em is ed on th e go ve rn m en t’s ad m it te d di sc ov e r y d el ay s. At m os t,
ho wev er, th is de la y can be ch arac te riz ed as ne gl ig en t. See Bark er, 4 07 U.S. a t 53 1 ( “A de li be rat e at te m

pt to de la y th e tri al in or de r to ha m pe r th e de fen se sh ou ld be weig ht ed he av il y ag ai ns t th e go ve rn m en t. A m or e ne ut ral reas on su ch as ne gl ig en ce

or ov ercr owd ed co ur ts sh ou ld be weig ht ed le ss he av il y bu t ne ve rth el es s sh ou ld be

co ns id ered

. . . .” (fo ot no te om it te d) ). In th is cas e, an y ne gl ig en ce is ba la nc ed by th e fact th at th e in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

, al th ou gh ul ti m at el y un su cces sf ul

, was no t “ cl earl y
ta ng en ti al or fri vo lo us ” to Si m s’ pr os ecu ti on : It co nc ern ed th e ad m is si bi li ty of

ev id en ce th at Si m s ad m it s, an d th e Si m s I co ur t fo un d, was cen tra l to th e fel on -in

po ss es si on ch arg e. Lou d H a w k

, 47 4 U.S. at 31 6; Si m s I, 77 6 F.3 d at 58 6. As th is
ch arg e carr ie d wit h it th e m os t se ve re se nt en ce, it was “ su ffi ci en tl y se rio us ” to jus ti fy
th e go ve rn m en t’s pu rs ui t of an in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Lou d Hawk, 47 4 U.S. at 31 6
Eve n th ou gh th e go ve rn m en t’s di la to ry co nd uc t ne ces si ta te d th e ap pe al

, th e in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al it se lf was le gi ti m at e an d pu rs ue d wit hi n a reas on ab le ti m efra m e. Thu s, th e de la y it cau se d do es no t de se rv e “ an y effe ct i v e w e ig ht ” in Si m s’ Si xt h
Am en dm en t s pe ed y

tri al cla im . Id.

-7

-3. As se rti on of Ri gh t to Spee dy Tri al

“ The th ird Bark er fa c t o r co ns id ers ‘w he th er in du e co ur se th e de fen da nt

as se rte d hi s rig ht to a sp eed y tri al .’ ” Eren as -Lun a, 56 0 F.3 d at 77 8 (qu ot in g Uni te d
St at es v. W al ke r, 92 F.3 d 71 4, 71 8 (8 th Ci r. 19 96 )). Des pi te th e go ve rn m en t’s

arg um en t to th e co nt rary, th e reco rd rev eal s th at as so on as th e go ve rn m en t su gg es te d

a co nt in ua nc e Si m s freq ue nt ly an d co ns is te nt ly as se rte d hi s in te nt to go to tri al
wit ho ut de la y , in cl ud in g a t t he di st ric t co ur t’s h eari ng on th e m ot io n t o ex cl ud e th e DNA ev id en ce, in Si m s’ m ot io n fo r reco ns id erat io n of ou r de ci si on to ex te nd th e du e da te of t he go ve rn m en t’s op en in g br ie f, an d i n S im s’ pro se a nd co un se le d m ot io ns

to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t on sp eed y tri al gr ou nd s. The se m ul ti pl e req ue st s fo r a
pr om pt tri al su ffi ce t o e st ab li sh th at Sim s ad eq ua te ly ass ert ed hi s s pe ed y tri al rig ht

. See Bark er, 40 7 U.S. at 52 9 (co ur t ev al ua ti ng th ird fact or sh ou ld “ weig h th e freq ue nc y an d fo rce of th e ob jecti on s as op po se d t o a t t a c hi ng si gn ifi can t weig ht to

a p ur el y pro for m a o bjec ti on ”).

4. Pre judi ce

Fi na ll y , th e co ur t m

us t co ns id er whe th er th e de la y pr ejud ic ed Si m s. In do in g

so , th e co ur t sh ou ld as se ss th e in te res ts se rv ed by th e sp eed y tri al rig ht

, whi ch are “ (i)

to pr ev en t op pr es si ve pr et ria l in carc erat io n; (ii ) to m in im iz e an xi et y an d con cern of
th e accu se d; an d (ii i) to li m it th e po ss ib il it y th at th e de fen se w i l l b e im pa ire d.” Id

. at 53 2. Si m s co nc ed es th at he su ffer ed no act ua l pr ejud ic e as a res ul t of th e twel ve

an d- ha lf- mo n t h de la y cau se d by th e in te rlo cu to ry ap pe al

. Bu t, he arg ue s th at

pr ejud ic e is no t req ui red

, ci ti ng Dog ge tt , 50 5 U.S. at 65 5 (“ [C]on si de rat io n of

pr ejud ic e is no t li m it ed to th e sp eci fic al ly de m on st rab le

, an d

. . . affi rm at iv e pr oo f of

pa rti cu la riz ed pr ejud ic e is no t es se nt ia l to ev ery sp eed y tri al c l a i m.” )

. The

go ve rn m en t di sa gr ees , arg ui ng th at “ [a] sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e is req ui red to es ta bl is h

a vi ol at io n of th e Si xt h Am en dm en t Sp eed y Tria l Cl au se .” Uni te d St at es v. Mal le tt , 75 1 F.3 d 90 7, 91 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ) (al te rat io n in or ig in al ) (q uo ti ng Ree d v. Farl ey , 51 2
U.S. 33 9, 3 53 (19 94 )).

-8

-W he th er or no t a sh owi ng of pr ejud ic e is req ui red in ev ery cas e, we ha ve be en

cl ear th at th e de gr ee of pr ejud ic e req ui red

, if an y , de pe nd s on th e de fe n d a n t’s
sh owi ng un de r th e pr eced in g Bark er fact or s. See Ere n a s

- Lun a, 56 0 F.3 d at 78 0 (fo ll owi ng “ Dog ge tt ’s in st ru ct io n to va ry th e weig ht as si gn ed to th e pr es um pt io n [o f

pr ejud ic e] acco rd in g to th e go ve rn m en t’s ne gl ig en ce an d th e le ng th of de la y ”). Here,
th e twel ve -an d- a-h al f-m on th de la y at tri bu ta bl e to th e go ve rn m en t “ was no t so gr eat
th at we are ab le to di sc ou nt [Si m s’] in ab il it y to sh ow pa rti cu la riz ed p r e ju d ic e fro m th at de la y .” Uni te d S t a t e s v. W il li am s, 55 7 F.3 d 94 3, 95 0 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (h ol di ng si xt een -m on th de la y cau se d by th e go ve rn m en t’s ne gl ig en ce was in su ffi ci en t whe re th e de fen da nt co ul d sh ow no pr ejud ic e). Mo reo ve r, gi ve n th e le ng th of th e de la y , Si m s can no t rel y so le ly on pr es um pt iv e pr ejud ic e whe re th ere is no ev id en ce th at th e in t e r l o c u t o r y ap pe al was il le gi ti m at e, m ad e in ba d fai th

, or us ed to ga in a ta ct ic al
ad va nt a g e

. See Dog ge tt , 50 5 U.S. at 65 7 (“ To be su re, to warra nt gr an ti ng rel ie f,

ne gl ig en ce un acco m

pa ni ed by pa rti cu la riz ed tri al pr ejud ic e m us t ha ve la st ed lo ng er th an n e gl ig en ce de m on st rab ly cau si ng su ch pr ejud ic e.”). Bec au se Si m s fai le d to
sh ow an y pa rti cu la riz ed pr ejud ic e res ul ti ng fro m th e de la y , th is fact or do es no t weig h
in hi s fa vo r.

W ei gh in g th e Bark er fact or s, th e co ur t co nc lu de s th at Si m s ha s no t pr ov ed th e
go ve rn m en t vi ol at ed hi s Si xt h Amen d men t r i gh t to a sp eed y tri al

. Giv en th at on ly
twel ve an d a ha lf m on th s of th e pr et ria l de la y was at tri bu ta bl e t o th e go ve rn m en t,
Si m s’ fai lu re to sh ow th at th e go ve rn m en t was at f a u l t f or pu rs ui ng th e y ear- lo ng in te rlo cu to ry

ap pe al or t ha t t he de la y

cau se d h im

pre jud ic e is fat al to hi s cl ai m

.

II I. Co ncl us io n

W e affi rm th e di st ric t co ur t’s de ni al of Si m s’ m ot io n to di sm is s th e in di ct m en t.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-9

-