2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

12-14-2009 

# U SA v . Ge rm aine B att i s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de n t i al
D ocke t N o . 08-2949

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Re posit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . Ge rm aine B att i s " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 12. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/12P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 08- 2949

UNI TE D ST ATE S OF AM ERI CA

v.
G ER M A I N E B A TTI S, A ppel l ant

A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. C r i m i nal N o. 04- cr - 00088- 001) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e A ni t a B

. B r ody

A r gued Sept ember 29, 2009 B e f o re : R E N D E L L a n d A M B R O , C ir c u it J u d g e s , and M cV E R R Y , D i s t r i ctJ udge*

*H onor abl e Ter r ence F. M cV erry , J udge of the U ni t ed St at es D i s t r i ct C our tfort he W es t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, s i t t i ng bydes i gnat i on.2 ( Fi l ed D ece m ber14, 2009 )

R o b e rt E p s te in , E s q
. [ ARGUE D] B r et tG

. Sw ei t zer , E s q. D e f e n d e r A ss o c iatio n o f

P h ilad e lp h ia Feder al C our tD i vi s i on 601 W al nutSt r eet T he C urt i s C enter , S uit e 54 0 W est Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ant
B e rn a d e tte A . M c K e o n , E s q
. [ ARGUE D] M ar k S. M i l l er , E s q. O ffi ce of t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 615 C hes t nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1250 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19106 C ouns el f orAppel l ee

OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJudge.
T h e S ix th A m e n d m e n t to th e C o n stitu ti o n sta tes th a t, “[i ] n al l cr i m i nal pr os ecut i ons , t he accus ed shal l enj oyt he r i ght to a sp e e d ya n d p u b lic tria l.” G e rm a in e B a tti s u rg e s th a t th is rig h t w a s v io late d w h e n f o rty -f iv e m o n th s e lap se d b e tw e e n h isA ft ert he deni al of hi s s peedyt r i al m ot i on, B at t i s pr ocee ded 1 to tr ial an d w as c o n v ict ed o n o n e c o u n t of p o sses sing a f

ir ea rm as a convi ct ed fe l on, and one c ountof p o ssess i ng amm uni t i on as a co n v ict ed fe lon , b o th in v iolati o n o f 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 9 2 2 (g)(1 ).
3 i ndi ct m entand tr i al

. T h e D i s t r i ctC our tr eas oned thr ough t he four

- fac t ort es tes t abl i s hed b y t he Supr eme C our ti n B ar kerv. W i ngo , 407 U

. S. 514 ( 1972) , and conc l uded that th ere w as no co n sti tuti o n al vio lat ion

. O n ap p ea l, w eigh ing thes e f o u r fa ctors an ew , w e re ac h a d iffe ren t con clus ion an d h o ld tha t B att is’ s ri gh tt o a spee dyt ri al w as vi olat ed. W e w i l l t herefore r everse th e o rd e r o f

th e D istri c t C o u r t an d re m a n d th e c a se w ith i ns t ruct i ons t o di s m i s s t he i ndi c tme n tand vac at e hi s convi ct i on. 1

T hi s cas e ar i s es out of an a l t er cat i on betw een Bat t i s and ot herpat r ons of t he Trol l eySt op T avern, a Phi l adel phi a bar , on M ar ch 22, 2003. B yt he end of t he conf r ont at i on, w hi ch had
m oved fr om t he bar t o a nearby s t r eet , B att i s w as i n pos s es s i on of a ha ndgun. A ccor di ng t o B at t i s , t he gun bel onged t o one of t he i ndi vi dual s w i t h w hom he w as fi ght i ng, and B at t i s t ook t he gun f r o m h i m i n o r d e r t o a v o i d b e i n g s h o t

. Ba t t i s w as su b se q u e n tlyp u rsu e d b yp o lice . A c c o rd in g to th e p o lice , B a tti s had t he gun al l al ong and t r i ed t o s hoot an offi ceratpoi nt

- bl ank ra n g e . B a tti s te st if

ied th a t h e d id n o t re m e m b e r a ttem p tin g to sh o o t th e o ff

icer.
B at ti s w as a rrested b ythe P h il ad elph ia P o li ce at t h e sc ene and w as char ged byt he D i s t r i ctA t t or ney w i t h at t empt ed ho m i ci de, agg ravat ed assault , and several fi rearm s vio lati on s. B at t i s ’ s i ni t i al appea r ance w as cont i nued on t hr ee oc cas i ons , at4 hi s r eques t , befor e he w as arr ai gned i n s t at e courton J anuary20, 2004. T he r ecor d i nd icat es t hatB at t i s w as r epr es ent ed by c o u n se l in th e sta te c o u rt c a se a t th e tim e o f h is a rra ig n m e n t.
O n F eb rua ry2 4 , 2 0 0 4 , B att is w as ind ict ed in the E astern D i s t r i c to f

P e n n s yl v a n i a f

o rp o s s e s s i o n o f

a f i r e a r m b y a c o n v i c t e d f

e l o n , i n v i o l a t i o n o f 1 8 U. S. C. § 9 2 2 ( g ) ( 1 )

. O n t he s ame day , t he G overnm entr eques t ed and r ece ived a be nch
w ar r antfr om t he D istr i ctC our t

. T he G overnm entl at er expl a i n e d t h a ti th a d i n f o r me d t h e Di s t r i c tCou r t ’ s c l e r k t hat B at t i s w as i n st at e cust od y , and t hat i ti s st and ard pract i ce t o u se a b e n c h w a rra n t as a d e ta in e r w h e n a d e f e n d a n t is in sta te c u sto d y . It a p p e a rs th a t th is in f o rm a tio n w a s n e v e r f

o rm a lly not ed byt he D i s t r i ctC our t , s i nce on February18, 2005, i tnot ed i n a “Repor tof SpeedyT r i al A ctD el ay ” thatpr ocee di ngs had b e e n d e layed b e c a u se B a tti s “ is a f u g iti v e .” A p p . 9 -1 0 . B a tti s w as notbr oughti nt o t he D i s t r i ctC ou rt fo r an ar r ai gnm entor i ni t i al appea r ance unt i l N ovember 2006.
T he r ecor d s ugges t s t hat t he s t at e cas e w as al s o dor m ant dur i ng t hi s per i od. A ccor di ng t o t he s t at e courtdocket , four t een c o n tin u a n c e s w e re re q u e ste d a f ter th e a r r a ig n m e n t. A t a s chedul i ng confe r ence w i t h t he s t at e cou r tj udge on J ul y18, 2 0 0 5 , B a tti s’s c o u n se l, A llan S a g o t, re q u e ste d a c o n tin u a n c e to al l ow t he fe der al t r i al t o pr ocee d fi r s t

. Sagotrep or t ed thathe had s poken t o A U SA M ar k M i l l er , t hatM i l l erhad s ai d t hatt he G o v e rn m e n t p la n n e d to p u rs u e th e f e d e ra l c a s e “ im m e d ia te ly,” a n d th a t S a g o t ex p e c ted th e f e d e ra l tr ia l to b e g in w ith in six ty day s
. A ppel l ee’ s Supp. A pp. 6. T he A s s i s t antD i s t r i ctA t t or ney di d notdi s put e t hes e s t at ement s , and the C our tadj ourne d t he ca se t o O ctob er 27 , 2 0 0 5

. Id. at7. O n O ct ober27, SagotT hi s deci s i on w as l at err ever s ed byt he Super i orC our t , and 2 th e c a se w a s re m a n d e d f o r tria l.
5 advi s ed the C our tt hat“[t ] he fe ds ar e s t i l l t r y i ng [B at t i s ] , ” and re q u e s te d a n o th e r c o n tin u a n c e
. I d. at15- 16. D ur i ng t hi s t i m e, B at t i s had no couns el i n fede r al cour t , and no ac ti vi tyw as occurr i ng i n B at t i s ’ s fede r al cas e.
T hi s r ecor d co n fl i ct s w i t h t he G overnm ent ’ s ver s i on of e ve nt s
. A ta 20 07 he a ri ng be fo r e t he D i s t r i c tCour t , A U SA M i l l erexpl ai ned thatt he D i s tr i ctA t t o rne y ’ s offi ce ha d re q u e ste d th a t f

e d e ra l au th o rities d e lay th e ir p ro se c u tio n w h ile the st at e courtcas e pr ocee ded. A ccor di ng t o M i l l er , t he D A ’s o ff ice h ad also rep ea tedly stat ed that “the y w ere rea d y
. . . to try t he ca s e. ” A pp. 44. M i l l er conce ded, how ever , t hat , “i n s ever al tele p h o n e c o n v e rsa tio n s,” S a g o t h a d a d v ise d h im th a t h e “ w o u ld prefer t he fede ral case t o g o fo rw ard fi rs t

. ” A pp
. 46 -47. T hu s, al t hough Sagothad i nfor m ed the s t at e courti n 2005 t hatM i l l er w as pr ocee di ng i n fede r al cour t , M i l l erbel ieve d tha the w as w ai t i ng fort he s t at e courtcas e t o pr ocee d.
O n Septem b er18, 2006, t he C our tof C om m on Pl eas di s m i s s ed the i ndi ctm entu n d er P en n sy lvan ia’s spe ed ytr ial rul e. 2 A f ter th e d ism iss a l o f

th e sta te c a se , fe d e ra l p ro se c u to rs f in a lly b e g a n to p ro c e e d w ith th e ir p ro s e c u ti o n , o v e r tw o a n d a h a lf y ear s aft erB at t i s w as i ndi ct ed. O n O ct ober17, 2006, t hey obt a i n e d a s u p e r s e d i n g i n d i c t me n t , whi c h a d d e d a c h a r ge of pos s es s i on of amm uni t i on bya convi ct ed fe l on, al s o i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 922( g) ( 1)

. O n N ovember 2, B at t i s w as br ought befor e a fede r al M agi s t r at e J udge for hi s i ni t i al appea r ance
. T he6 M agi s t r at e J udge appoi nt ed couns el , s chedul ed an a r r ai gnm ent f o rNo v e mb e r7 , a n d o r d e r e d Ba t t i s t o b e h e l d wi t h o u tb a i l

. At th e N o v e m b e r 7 a r r a ig n m e n t, B a tti s p lea d e d n o t g u iltyb u t d id notcont es tbei ng hel d w i t hout bai l

. B at t i s had not been br ought befor e the D i s t r i ctC our tforan arr ai gnm ento ri ni t i al appea r ance befor e N ovember 2006, and had no tb e e n r epr es ent ed bycouns el up t o t hatpoi nti n t he fe der al cas e. A l t hough S ag o t had bee n r epr es ent i ng B at t i s i n t he st at e cas e, B at t i s had i nfor m ed Sagot t hathe co u l d notaff

or d t o r et ai n Sagott o r epr es enthi m i n t he fe d e r a l c a s e a s wel l

. On Nov e mbe r9 a n d Nov e mbe r17, r es pect i vel y , A s s i s t antFeder al D efe nder s B enj ami n C ooperand M ark W i l son en t ered t heirapp earances.
T h e Di s tr i c tCo u r t s e t a t r i a l d a t e o f J a n u a r y2 , 2 0 0 7

. On D ece m ber4, 2006, defe ns e couns el m oved t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ct m entforvi ol at ion o f B at t i s ’ s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al

. Shor t l yt her eaf t er , B at t i s fi l ed an unoppos ed
m ot i on t o pos tpone t he tr i al , w hi ch w as gr ant ed. T he D i s t r i ct C our thel d a hea r i ng on t he m o ti on t o di s m i s s on J anuary9, 2 0 0 7 , at w h ich S a g o t an d M ill e r d e sc r ib e d th e h isto ryo f th e ir di s cus s i ons ( w hi ch i s s um m ar i zed a bove) r egar ding how t he cas es w oul d pr ocee d.
O n F e b ru a ry1 5 , the D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e m o tio n to di s m i s s t he i ndi ct m ent

. I n a w r i t t en O pi ni on and O r der, t he C o u rt a p p lied th e f

a c to rs s e t f

o rth b y th e S u p re m e C o u rt in B ar ker : th e len g th o f

d e lay, re a so n f

o r th e d e lay, e x ten t to w hi ch t he def

endant asse rt ed hi s s peedyt r i al r i ght , and the p rejud ice su ff

ere d b ythe d e f

e n d an t. In d o ing so , the C o u rt m ade the fol l ow i ng det er m i nat i ons
. Fi r s t , a del ayof “32 mont hs is a s er i ous and unus ual del ay , ” and thus “w ei ghs i n B at t i s ’s7 f a v o r.” A p p . 8 4

. S e c o n d , the G o v e rn m e n t d e f e rre d to th e sta te p ro se c u tio n a s “ a m a tter o f p o licya n d d isc re tio n ,” a n d n o t “in
m al i ce, ori n an att empt t o hamper B at t i s ’ s defe nse,” o routof “bad f ai t h. ” T hus , t he del ayw as “j us t i fi abl e and doe s notw ei gh s i gni fica n t l yagai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es
. ” A pp. 85. T hi r d, alt h o u g h B att is “d id m ak e so m e e f f o rtthro u g h h is st ate c o u rt at t or ney , Sagot , t o putt he A U SA on no ti ce thathe w ant ed the fede r al cas e [t o] go for w ar d, ” he “ cert ai nl y d id notm ake the ut m os teff

or tt o gethi m s el f bef

or e thi s C our t an d m o v e the fede r al cas e forw ar d. ” A pp. 86. Speci fi cal l y , he had not “cont act ed the C our tbyi nfor m al c o m m uni cat i on orfor m al
m ot i on” pr i or t o t he D ece m ber 2006 m ot i on t o di s m i s s , and had notpur s ued the mat t erw i t h t he U

. S. A t t or ney ’ s O ffi ce “ aft ert he in iti a l co n v e rsa tio n .” A p p . 8 6 . T h u s, “ B a tti s’s a ss e rtio n o f h is
r i ghtw ei ghs onl yverys l i ght l yi n hi s favor

. ” A pp. 86. Four t h, B a t t i s h a d n o ts h o w n t h a th e w a s p r e j u d i c e d b y t h e d e l a y, par t i cul arl ys i nce, i n pr epar i ng forhi s s t at e ca s e, “w hi ch i nvol ved t he s ame i nci dentas t he feder al char ges , ” “Bat t i s had [a] ful l oppor tuni t yt o” i nves t i gat e the r el evant fac t s
. A pp. 86- 88. T he C our tt her efor e hel d t hat B at t i s ’ s s peedyt r i al r i ghthad notbeen vi ol at ed.
T he C our ts eta new t r i al dat e of J ul y 3 , 2007. I n t he i nt er i m , B at t i s , on hi s ow n, des pi t e bei ng r epr es ent ed bycouns el a t th e tim e , se n t a le tter to th e C o u r t re q u e stin g a sp e e d ytrial, and fi l ed a mot i on t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ct m ent forvi ol at i ons of t he SpeedyT r i al A ct

. T he m ot i on w as deni ed. O n J une 26, 2007, d e f e n se c o u n se l m o v e d f

o r a n o th e r c o n tin u a n c e in o rd e r to al l ow t i m e forcert ai n for ens i c t es t i ng
. T he C our tgr ant ed the cont i nuance and s eta new t r i al dat e of O ct ober22.8 J ur ys el ect i on occurr ed on O ct ober22, 2 0 0 7 , a n d o p e ni ng s t at ement s began tw o w eeks l at er , on N ovember 5.
T he j ur yfound B at t i s gui l t yon bot h count s
. O n J une 23, 2008, t he D i s t r i ctC our ts ent ence d B at t i s t o concurr ent t er m s of 12 0 m on t hs’ i m pri sonm ent on bo t h co un t s, and fi ve y ears ’ s uper vi s ed r el eas e. T hi s appea l fol l ow ed.
T h e Di s t r i c tCou r th a d j u r i s d i c t i o n o v e rt h i s c a s e u n d er 1 8 U. S

. C. § 3 2 3 1

. W e h a ve j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U. S

. C. § 1291.
We r e v i e w de novo a di s t r i ctcour t ’ s l egal concl us i on r egar ding a def

endant ’ s cl ai m t hathi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o a s p e e d ytr ia l w a s v io la te d

. B ur ket tv. Ful com er , 951 F. 2d 1431, 1437- 38 ( 3d C i r
. 1991)

. W e re vi ew t he fa ctual fi ndi ngs u n d e rp in n in g th a t c o n c lu s io n f o r c le a r e rr o r. I

d.
I n B ar ker , t he S up r e me C ou rtest abli shed a b al ancing t est f o r c o u rts to u se in e v a lu a tin g w h e th e r th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t to a s p e e d ytr ia l h a s b e e n v io la te d . A s n o te d a b o v e , B ar ker i dent i fi ed fourfac t or s forcour t s t o cons i der in w ei ghi ng t he pr os ecut i on’ s conductagai ns tt hatof t he def ens e: t he l ength of del ay , r eas on fort he del ay , ext entt o w hi ch the def en d ant as s er t ed hi s s peedyt r i al r i ght , and the pr ej udi ce s uffe r ed byt he d ef en d a n t. 4 0 7 U

. S

. at 53 0

. N o n e o f th ese fa ctors is “e ith er a nece s s ar yo r su ffi ci entcondi t i on, ” and the fa ct or s “mustbe cons i der ed t oget herw i t h s uch otherci r cumst ance s as m aybe
r el evant

. ” I

d. at 533. I f a defe ndant ’ s r i ght t o a s peedyt r i al hasB at ti s d o es n o t cl ai m t hathi s s t atut or yr i ght s undert he 3 S p e e dy Tr i a l Ac twe r e v i o l a t e d , p r e s u ma b l yb e c a u s e t h e t i me per i od under that s t atut e s t ar t s w hen the i ndi ct m enti s fi l ed or t he d efen dan t appe ars befo re a court , “w hichever dat e l ast o cc u rs. ” 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 1 6 1 (c)(1).
9 b e e n v io la te d , th e in d ic tm e n t m u s t b e d is m is s e d

. I d. at522. 3

T he fi r s t cons i der at i on undert he B ar kertes t is th e len g th of t he del ay
. T hi s , i n turn, e n tai ls a tw o- par ti nqui r y
. “[T] he del ayi nvol ved fi r s t fi gur es i nt o t he s peedyt r i al equat i on fort he purpos e of de t erm ining w hetheri ti s l ong enough t o t r i gger inq u iryinto the o ther B ar ker f a c t o r s
. ” Ha ke em v. B eye r , 990 F. 2d 75 0, 760 ( 3d C i r
. 1993)

. I f t he del ayi s r el at i vel ybr i ef, then itis no t nec essa ryto co n side r t h e o ther B ar kerf act ors. B ar ker , 407 U

. S. at530- 31. I f t he del ayi s s uffi ci ent l yl ong, c o u rts a ss e ss th e e x ten t to w h ich th e d e lay w a s lon g e n o u g h to

“ in te n s if y ” th e p re ju d ic e c a u s e d b yth e d e la y
. D ogget tv. U ni t ed St at es , 505 U

. S. 647, 652 ( 1992)

. W e have pr evi ous l yhel d t hat a del ayof eve n four t een mont hs i s s uffi ci entt o t r i ggerr evi ew of t he r emai ni ng B ar kerf a c to rs
. See H

akee m , 990 F

. 2 d at760. H ow ever , we h a v e a l s o n o t e d t h a t“ [ l ] o n g e rd e l a y s c a n be t ol er at ed, forexampl e, w hen the cr i m e i s veryserious or compl ex. ” W

el l s v. P et s ock , 9 4 1 F

. 2 d 2 5 3 , 2 5 7 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 1 ); see al

so B ar ker , 407 U

. S. at531.
T h e p a rties d isa g re e a s to h o w th e p e rio d o f d e lay i n th is cas e s houl d be meas ur ed. B at t i s ar gues t hat t he del ayr an fr om t he dat e of hi s ar r es tby stat e author i t i es t o t he dat e the fe der al t r i al began. T he G overnm ent ar gues t hat t he del ayr an fr om t he10 dat e of Bat t i s ’ s fede r al i ndi ct m entt o t he dat e of hi s i ni t i al a p p e a ra n c e in f

e d e ra l c o u rt. B a tti s w a s a rre ste d b ysta te au tho ri ti es o n M arc h 2 2 , 2 0 0 3 , an d w as ind ict ed in the E astern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a el even mont hs l at er , on February24, 2004. J ur y s el ect i on for hi s fede r al t r i al occurr ed on O ct ober22, 2007. T hus , approxi m at el yfi ft y - s i x m ont hs el aps ed betw een B a t t i s ’ s s t a t e a r r e s t a n d f e d e r a l tr i a l , a n d a p p r o x i m a t e l y f o r t yf iv e m o n th s e lap se d b e tw e e n h is f e d e ra l in d ictm e n t an d trial.
I n gener al , del ay is meas ur ed fr om t he dat e of a r r es tor in d ic tm e n t, w h ic h e v e r i s e a rl ie r, u n til th e s ta rt o f tr ia l. H akee m , 9 9 0 F

. 2 d at 7 6 0

. W e h av e n o t prev iou slyco n side red w h ethe r, a s B a tti s c o n ten d s, a n a rre st b ysta te a u th o rities is s u f f icie n t to t r i ggera def

endant ’ s r i ghtt o a s peed y tr i al on s ubs equent fede r al charges , and the part i es do notci t e anyauthor i t yt hat s quar el y addr es s es t hi s ques t i on. H ow ever , i n U ni t ed Stat es v. Ma c D o n a ld , t he Supr eme C our t s t at ed i n a footnot e, w hi ch w as cl ear l ydi ct a, t hat“an a r r es tori ndi ct m ent byone s over ei gn w oul d not caus e t he s peedy t r i al guar ant ees t o become engage d a s to p o s s ib le s u b s e q u e n t in d ic tm e n ts b ya n o th e r s o v e re ig n .” 456 U

. S. 1, 10 n. 11 ( 1982)

. Si m i l ar l y , t he other cour t s of appea l s t o have c ons i der ed thi s i s s ue have hel d t hatan “a r r es ton stat e c h arg es d o es n o t eng a g e the s p ee d ytr ial p rotec ti o n fo r a s ubs equentfede r al char ge. ” U ni t ed Stat es v. G ar ner , 32 F. 3d 1 3 0 5 , 1 3 0 9 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 4 ); s ee al s o, e. g. , Uni t e d S t a t es v. Mu n iz , 1 F .3 d 1 0 1 8 , 1 0 2 4 (1 0 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ) ; U ni t ed Stat es v. Ma r l er , 7 5 6 F .2 d 2 0 6 , 2 1 1 (1 st C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). W e w ill a d o p t th is appr oach as w el l

. W hen an a r r es ton s t at e cha r ges i s fol l ow ed by a feder al i ndi ct m ent , t he r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al i n t he fe der al cas e i s t r i gger ed byt he feder al i ndi ct m ent , and the t i m e per i odT h e G o v e rn m e n t co n ten d s th a t th e d e lay en d e d w h e n B a tti s 4
m ade hi s i ni t i al appear ance i n fede r al cour ton N ovember 2, 2006, but i t ci t es no author i t y for t hi s pr opos i t i on. W e dec l i ne t o fol l ow t hi s appr oach. T o t he c ont r ary , t he pr act i ce of our co u rtan d th e S u p rem e C o u rth as g en era ll yb ee n to m ea su re d e la yu n til th e s ta rt o f

tr ia l. See, e. g. , B ar ker , 407 U

. S. at533; U n it edSt at es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 180, 184 ( 3d C i r
. 1998); H akee m , 990 F. 2d at760. W e r ecogni ze thati n D o g g e tt , 5 0 5 U

. S

. at 65 2 , the C o u rt fo cu sed o n the p eriod b etw ee n ind ict m en t and arrest. H o w ev er, i n D o g g e tt , t h e fa ct s w er e uni que: t he G overnm enthad fa i l ed to c o n d u c t an a d e q u a te s e a rc h f o r D o g g e tt af

ter h is in d ictm e n t, l eadi ng t o a del ay of over ei ght y ear s befor e he w as arr es t ed and
n o t i f i e d o f t h e i n d i c t m e n t

. S i n c e D o g g e t tu l t i m a t e l y p l e d g u i l t y, t her e w as no t r i al dat e t o w hi ch the C o u rt co u ld l ook. M or eover , i n l i ght of t he l engthy del ay befor e D ogget tw as even arr es t ed, t her e w as no need fort he C our tt o l ook pas tt he dat e of a rre st in o rd e r to d e ter m in e th a t th e d e lay w a s e x c e ss iv e . T h is
m ayexpl ai n w hyt he C our tr el i ed o n t he dat e of a r r es tw i t hout c o m m e n tin g o n th e f

a c t th a t th is a p p ro a c h d e v iate d f ro m its anal y s i s i n B ar ker

. W e al s o hol d t hatt he s peedyt r i al r i ght w as not aff ect ed by 5 t he fi l i ng of a supe r s edi ng i ndi ct m ent i n 2006. T he G overnm ent
11 undercons i der at i on comm ence s on t hatdat e. 4

T he r el evantper i od of del ayi s t hus t he for t y - fi ve mont hs betw een the fede r al i ndi ct m enton February24, 2004, and the sta rt o f trial o n O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7

. T h is is lo n g e n o u g h to 5does not ar gue otherw i s e ( i

. e. , t hatt he fi l i ng of t he s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m ent in 2 006 r es t ar t ed the cons t i tut i onal s peedyt r i al cl ock)

. O urhol di ng i s cons i s t entw i t h t he appr oach t hat w e t ook i n U ni t ed Stat es v. D r eye r , 5 3 3 F .2 d 1 1 2 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ), in
w hi ch w e ca l cul at ed t he del ay betw een t he or i gi nal i ndi ct m ent a n d t r i a l , n o t wi t h s t a n d i n g t h e i n t e r v e n i n g f i l i n g s o f t wo s uper s edi ng i ndi ct m ent s
. I ti s al s o cons i s t entw i t h t he a p p r o a c h e s ta k e n b yth e o th e r c o u rt s o f a p p e a ls

. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. P ar ker , 5 0 5 F .3 d 3 2 3 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed St at es v. O r i edo , 4 9 8 F .3 d 5 9 3 (7 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. K i ng , 4 8 3 F .3 d 9 6 9 (9 th C ir. 2 0 0 7 ); U nit ed S t a tes v
. W

atf ord , 4 6 8 F .3 d 8 9 1 (6 th C ir. 2 0 0 6 ); U ni t ed St at es v. A r m edoSa rm ien to , 5 4 5 F .2 d 7 8 5 (2 d C ir. 1 9 7 6 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. D i Muro , 5 4 0 F

. 2 d 5 0 3 (1st C ir

. 1 9 7 6 ).
12 req u ir e c o n side rati o n o f th e re m ai ni ng B arkerf a c to rs, e sp e c ially i n li gh tof the rel at i velystraig htfor w ard nat ure of the charges, and t o i nt ens i fyanypr ej udi ce c aus ed by t he del ay
. W e conc l ude th a t th e f irst f a c to r w e ig h s h e a v ilya g a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t.
T he s econd Ba r k er f

a c t o ri s t h e r e a s o n f

o rt h e d e l a y. B ar kergroup ed p ossi ble r easons fo r del ay i nto t hree cat ego ri es. A del i ber at e effor t by t he G overnm ent t o del ay t he t r i al “i n or der to h a m p e r th e d e f

e n se ” w e ig h s h e a v ily a g a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t. B ar ker , 407 U

. S

. at 5 31. A “more neutr al r eas on s uch as negl i gence orover cr o w d ed cour t s ” al s o w ei ghs agai ns tt he G overnm ent , t hough “l es s heavi l y
. ” I d. T his is b e c a use

“ u lti m a te r e sp o n sib ili tyf o r su c h c irc u m sta n c e s m u st re st w ith t he [G ] overnm ent , ” s i nce i ti s t he G overnm ent ’ s dut yt o br i ng a d e f e n d a n t to tr ia l. I

d. at 527, 531. Fi nal l y , “a val i d r eas on, s uch13 a s a m is s in g w itn e s s , s h o u ld s e rv e to ju s tif ya p p ro p ri a te d e la y .” I d. at5 3 1

. B ycontr as t , “del aycaus ed byt he def ens e w ei ghs agai n st the def

endant , ” i ncl udi ng “del aycaus ed byt he defe ndant ’ s couns el

. ” V er m ontv. B r i l l on , 129 S. C t

. 1 2 83, 1290- 9 1 (2009)

. T he G overnm ent“bea r s t he bur den t o j us t i fy t he del ay
. ” H

akee m , 9 9 0 F .2 d a t 7 7 0

. I n eval uat i ng t hi s fac t or , w e s ubt r act t he amount of del ay caus ed by t he defe ndant fr om t he del ay caused b y the G o v e rn m e n t. See, e. g. , U ni t ed Stat es v. D ent , 149 F. 3d 1 8 0, 1 8 4 -8 5 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ); H akee m , 990 F. 2d at770. I n t hi s cas e, t r i al w as init ial ly s etforJ anuary2, 2007. A s a r es ul tof cont i nuance s s oughtbyB at ti s , t he tr i al w as cont i nued fr om J anuary2 t o J ul y3, and fr om J ul y3 t o O ct ober22. E xcl udi ng th e p e rio d b e tw e e n Ja n u a ry 2 a n d O c to b e r 2 2 , 2 0 0 7 , the len g th o f d e l a y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t i s a p p r o x i m a t e l y t h i r t yfi ve m on t hs.
T he G overnm entconce des t hati ti nt ent i onal l ydel ay ed br i ngi ng B at t i s t o t r i al

. H ow ever , t he G overnm entexpl ai ns t hat it d id th is n o t to d isa d v a n tag e h im b u t, rath e r , so th a t th e sta te p r o s e c u t o r s c o u l d t r yBa t t i s f i r s t

. Th u s , t h e Go v e r n me n tc l a i ms t o have be en ac t i ng “outof def er ence t o t he s t at e’ s compel l i ng i nt er es ti n t hi s cas e, w hi ch i nvol ved an a l l egati o n t hatt he d e f e n d a n t atte m p ted to s h o o t a p o lice o f f ice r, an d to p ro m o te h arm o n iou s relati o n s w ith the lo ca l auth o ri ti es.” A p p ell ee ’s B r. at 36

. T h e G o v ern m en t al so u rg e s th at fe d era l pro sec u tors bel i eved thatt he s t at e w as di l i gent l ypur s ui ng i t s cas e.
W e ar e not per s uaded t hat t he G overnm ent ’ s j us t i fi cat i on forthe del ayi s s uffi ci entt o bal ance t he s cal es
. A s not ed above ,14 even a “neutr al ” r eas on w ei ghs agai ns tt he G overnm ent

. U nl i ke a ca s e w her e a w i t nes s i s m i s s i ng, t he G overnm entcoul d have b ro u g h t B a tti s to trial a t an ytim e . P ro se c u to rs k n e w p re c ise ly
w her e B at t i s w as l ocat ed, y et t heyfai l ed t o br i ng hi m befor e the D i s t r i ct C our t for an i ni t i al appea r ance
. O n ce fe d er al pr os ecut or s br i ng an i ndi ct m entagai ns ta def endant , t heyhave a duty to not i fyt he D i s t r i ctC our tt hatt he def endants houl d be a rra ig n e d a n d a p p o in ted c o u n se l, an d to b rin g th e d e f e n d a n t to tr ia l e x p e d itio u s ly. See, e. g. , B ar ker , 407 U

. S. at527 ( “[S] oci etyhas a part i cul ari nt er es ti n br i ngi ng s w i ft pr os ecut i ons , and s oci ety ’ s r epr es ent at i ves ar e the ones w ho s houl d pr ot ectt hati nt er es t

. ”)

. T hi s dut yper s i s t s even w hen st at e authori t i es have a strong i nter est i n bri ng i ng t heirow n case a g a in st th e sa m e d e f

e n d a n t. T h e G o v e rn m e n t ca n n o t in d ict a defe ndantand t hen del aya ca s e i ndefi ni t el y , w i t houtanynot i ce to a f e d e ra l ju d g e , m e re lyb e c a u se it is a w a re o f a sta te pr ocee di ng i nvo lving t he s ame defenda nt

. T hi s i s t rue r egar dl es s of how “compel l i ng” the s t at e’ s i nt er es ti n t hat p ro c e e d in g is. W h ile th e in iti a l d e lay t o a llo w th e s ta te to pr ocee d m ayhave be en val i d, t her e ca m e a ti m e w hen the fede r al G overnm ents houl d have t aken s om e ac t i on t o pr ocee d in lig h t o f

th e s ta te a u th o ri tie s ’ i n a c tio n
. T he G ov e rn m e nt’ s explanat i on of the delayi s al so under m i ned byt he fa ctt hat t he s t at e tr i al w as appar ent l ybei ng d e layed in o rd e r to f

a c ili tate th e f

e d e ra l p ro se c u tio n . T h is a p p a r e n tmi s u n d e r s t a n d i n g p e r s i s t e d f o r a s l o n g a s t h i r t y - t wo m ont hs , w hi l e t he G overnm ent di d not hi ng t o pr ocee d w i t h t he c a se . T h is f

a c to r th e re f

o re w e ig h s a g a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t, t hough notas heavi l yas i tw oul d if the G o vernm enthad bee n i nt ent i onal l yunder m i ni ng t he def ens e.15 T h e third f

ac tor u n d er B ar keri s w hethert he def endant has as s er t ed hi s r i ghtt o a s peedy t r i al

. A n as s er t i on of t hi s r i ght p ro v id e s e v id e n c e th a t th e d e f e n d a n t w a s b e in g d e p riv e d o f h is cons t i tu t i onal r i ghts i nce “ [t ] he more s er i ous t he depr i vat i on, t he
m or e l i kel ya def

endanti s to co m pl ai n. ” B ar ker , 407 U

. S. at 531. T h u s, a d efendant ’ s cl ai m t hatt he r i ghti s bei ng vi ol at ed p ro v id e s s tr o n g e v id e n c e th a t it a c tu a lly w a s v io la te d

. I d. at 531- 32. O n t he ot her hand, “fa i l ur e t o as s er tt he r i ghtw i l l m ake i tdi ffi cul tfora def

endantt o pr ove t hat he w as deni ed a s peedy t r i al

. ” I d. M o re o v e r, w h e n a d e f e n d a n t re q u e sts a sp e e d ytrial, b u t “ th ro u g h c o n tra rya c tio n s . . . e v id e n c e s a n u n w ill in g n e ss to comm ence w i t h t he t r i al r eques t ed, [t he] r eques tcarr i es m i ni m al
w ei ght

. ” H

akee m , 990 F. 2d at765.
W e have pr evi ous l ydes cribe d t w o w ay s i n w hi ch a d e f e n d a n t c a n sh o w th a t h e a ss e rte d h is rig h t to a sp e e d ytrial. W hen a defe ndant i s r epr es ent ed bycouns el , he s houl d i dent i fy

“ a m o tio n o r so m e e v id e n c e o f d ire c t in stru c tio n to c o u n se l to a s s e r tt h e r i g h ta t a t i me wh e n f o r ma l a s s e r t i o n wo u l d h a v e s o me chanc e of s ucce s s
. ” H akee m , 9 9 0 F .2 d a t 7 6 6 . B yc o n tra st, “i n fo r m al corr es pondence ” t o t he courtbya r epr es ent ed d e f e n d a n t is le s s c o n v in c in g
. I d. W h e n a d e f

e n d a n t is p r o c e e d i ng p ro se , h e “ d o e s n o t h a v e to m a k e a p ro c e d u ra lly per fec tas s er t i on o f h is s peedyt r i al r i ght s , butm us tm ake a
r eas onabl e as s er t i on of th e r i ghts o as t o putauthor i t i es on not i ce of hi s Si xt h A m endment cl ai m
. ” D ougl as v. C athel , 456 F. 3d 403, 418 ( 3d C i r
. 2008) ( inter nal quot at i on m ar ks and ci t at i on om i t t ed)

. W e emphas i ze , h ow ever , t hateven i f a d e f e n d a n t f a ils to a d e q u a telya ss e rt h is r ig h t to a sp e e d ytrial, t hatm eans onl yt hatt he thi r d Ba r ker fa ct orw i l l be w ei ghed agai ns thi m
. I t does not m ean t hat he cannot cl ai m t hathi s r i ghtI t i s not cl ear how m any conver s at i ons occurr ed b etw een 6 S a g o t an d A U S A M ill e r. M ill e r sa id th a t “s e v e ra l” conver s at i ons had occ ur r ed. A pp. 47. H ow ever , Sagotr efe r r ed to o n ly o n e c o n v e rsa tio n , a n d th e D istric t C o u rt m e n tio n e d o n ly o n e c o n v e rsa tio n in its o p in io n . W e d o n o t f in d c lea r e rro r in th e d e ter m in a tio n th a t o n ly o n e c o n v e rsa tio n o c c u rre d , an d it i s i m m at er i al t o ouranal y s i s w hethert her e w as m or e than one s uch conver s at i on. W e w i l l t her efor e ass um e t hat t her e w as onl yone conver s at i on. 16 t o a s peedyt r i al w as vi ol at ed.
O n fourdi ffe r en t o cca s i ons , B att i s not i fi ed author i t i es t hat he w a n t ed h i s federal t ri al t o p roceed p rom ptl y
. T he fir st tim e , S a g o t, his c o u n se l f o r th e sta te c o u rt p ro c e e d in g , told A U S A M ill e r th a t h e p re f e rre d th a t th e f

e d e ra l trial o c c u r f

irst. 6 A tt he t i m e, B at t i s had not y etappea r ed i n fede r al cour t , and w as unr epr es ent ed forpurpos es of t he fe der al cas e. E ven though Sagothad ca l l ed A U SA M i l l eron behal f of Bat t is, B att is had sp e c if ica llya d v ise d S a g o t th a t h e c o u ld n o t af f o rd to re tain h im i n t he fe der al cas e. W e t her efor e concl ude t hat B at t i s w as act i ng pro se i n t h e f

e d e r a l c a s e a tt h a tt i me
. Th e G over nm ent conce des t hatA U SA M i l l erdi d r ece i ve S ag o t’ s r eques t , but c l a i ms t h a tM i l l e r e x p e c t e d t h e r e q u e s t t o b e f o r ma l i z e d i n s o me w ay
. H o w ev er, w e h av e n ev er r equi r ed a def end ant, m uch l ess a pro se d ef

en d an t, to m ak e a fo rm al m o ti o n to a c o u rt , o r a f o rm a l re q u e st to th e G o v e rn m e n t, i n o r d e r to d e m o n stra te h is d e sire to re c e iv e a sp e e d ytrial.
B at t i s t hen addr es s ed t hr ee spe ci fi c re ques t s fora s peedyB eca us e B at t i s m ade t he fi nal t w o r eques t s ata t i m e w hen 7 t he tr i al had been con t i nu ed at h is coun sel ’s request , w e m ust as s um e thatB at t i s w as not r eady t o pr ocee d t o t r i al att hatt i m e, and w e are therefore com pell ed to gi ve those request s l ess w e ig h t th a n h is e a rl ie r r e q u e s ts

. See H akee m , 990 F. 2d at764 ( “R epea t ed as s er t i ons of t he ri ght do not

. . . bal ance t hi s fac t or in f a v o r o f a [ d e f e n d a n t] w h e n o th e r a c tio n s in d ica te th a t h e is
u n wi l l i n g o ru n r e a d yt o g o t o t r i a l

. ” )

. At t h e s a me t i me, ho wev e r , we n o t e t h a tBa t t i s was u n d e r s t a n d a b l yn o tp r e p a r ed for tri al w hen he f

i l ed thes e r eques t s i n M ar ch and J une 2007, j us tfourand s even mont hs , r es pect i vel y , aft erfede r al couns el
w a s a p p o in te d f

o r h im , thr e e a n d a h a lf y e a rs a f ter th e e v e n ts t ook pl ace
. T her efor e, under t he ci r cumst ance s of this case, t hes e r eques t s do pr ovi de s om e evi dence t hatB at t i s w as bei ng d e n ied a sp e e d ytrial.
17 t r i al t o t he C our t

. W i t hi n w eeks of bei ng appoi nt ed, hi s fede r al couns el m oved t o di s m i s s t he i ndi ct m enton s pee dyt r i al g ro u n d s. T h e p ro m p tn e ss o f th is m o ti o n w e ig h s s tro n g lyin B at t i s ’s favor

. A ft ert hatm ot i on w as deni ed, B at t i s s enta pro se l et t ert o t he D i s t r i ct C our t i n M ar ch 2007 t o r eques t a s peedy t r i al , and t hen, i n M ay 2007, fi l ed a pro se m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he in d ictm e n t o n sta tu to rysp e e d ytrial g r o u n d s. T h e se re q u e sts i n d i c a t e t h a tB a t t i s w a s c o n c e r n e d th a th i s t r i a l h a p p e n p r o m p t l y, and p r o v i d e s o me e v i d e n c e t h a t h i s r i g h t t o a s p e e d y t r i al w as bei ng vi ol at ed. 7

B at t i s faul t s t he D i s t r i ct C our tforr equi r i ng hi m t o have
m ade “ t he ut m os teff

o rt to ge thi m s el f bef

or e thi s C our tand
m ove the fe der al cas e for w ar d. ” A pp. 86. H ow ever , w e do notW e not e thatt hi s i s nota s i tuat i on w her e the courtw as 8 gi ven no not i ce of

t h e d efe ndant ’ s cl ai m ed cons t i tut i onal vi ol at i on, as w oul d have been t he ca s e had Bat t i s neveras s er t ed h is rig h t in th e trial c o u rt a n d th e n p ro c e e d e d to trial, o n lyto cl ai m on appea l t hat hi s r i ghthad bee n vi ol at ed. T hats i tuat i on w o u ld raise the issue o f w aive r. 18 v iew th e C o u rt’s u se o f th e te r m “ u tm o st e f f o rt” a s its e n u n c iat io n o f

th e sta n d a rd th a t B a tti s w a s re q u ire d to m e e t. Sur el yt her e i s no s uch st andar d for a defenda nt ’ s “r eques t ” for a s peedy t r i al

. W e al s o not e thatal t hough a form al m ot i on t o a fede r al cour tpr ovi des s t r ong evi dence t hat a def endantbel i eved hi s r i ghtt o a s peedyt r i al w as bei ng vi ol ated , a r eques tm ade d ire c tlyto f

e d e ra l p r o s e c u to rs s h o u ld a lso b e tak e n in to a c c o u n t. 8

T ak en tog ethe r, the re q u est t h at B att is’ s state co u rt co u n sel m ade t o fede r al pr os ecut or s , t he mot i on t o di s m i s s on sp e e d ytrial g ro u n d s th a t B a tti s’s f e d e ra l co u n se l f

iled p ro m p tly upon bei ng r et ai ned, and, t o a l es s er ext ent , t he tw o s ubs equent req u es ts f

o r a sp ee d ytr ial m ad e b yB att is on h is ow n are s uffi ci entt o caus e t he thi r d B ar kerfa ctor to w eigh in h is fav o r.
T h e f in a l B ar kerf

a c to r is th e p re

ju d ice to th e d e f

e n d a n t. T he Supr eme C our thas out l i ned tw o w ay s i n w hi ch a de fenda nt can es t abl i s h pr ej udi ce. I n B ar ker , th e C o u rt d ire c ted th e c o u rts t o assess t he p rej ud i ce t o a d efen dan t“i n li gh tof the i ntere sts

. . . whi c h t h e s p e e d y t r i a l r i g h t was d e s i g n e d t o p r o t e c t

. ” 407 U

. S. at 5 32. A defe ndantcan e s t abl i s h s peci fi c pr ej udi ce by s how i ng t hathe w as s ubj ectt o “oppr es s i ve pr etr i al19 i ncar cer at i on, ” thathe s uffe r ed “a nxi etyand conc ern” aboutt he i m pendi ng t r i al , ort hathi s defe ns e w as i m pai r ed as a r es ul tof th e d e la y
. I

d. H ow ever , i n D o g

g e tt , 5 0 5 U

. S

. at 65 5 , the C o u rt hel d t hat “cons i der at i on of pr ej udi ce i s not l i m i t ed t o the sp e c if ica llyd e m o n stra b le,” a n d a llo w e d d e f e n d a n ts to c laim pr ej udi ce w i t hout pr ovi di ng “af fi r m at i ve proof

of par t i cul ar i zed pr ej udi ce. ” G i ven t hat “t i m e’ s er os i on of exc ul pat or yevi dence a n d tes tim o n y ” c a n h in d e r a d e f e n d a n t’s a b ili ty to p ro v e th a t h is d e f e n s e wa s i mp a i r e d b ya d e l a y , t h e Co u r ts t a t e d t h a t“ we g e n e ra lly h a v e to re c o g n ize th a t ex c e ss iv e d e lay pr e su m p tiv e ly c o m p ro m ise s th e re liab ili tyo f a trial in w a y s th a t n e ith e r p a rty can pro v e o r, for thatm at t er , i dent i fy

. ” I d. a t 6 5 5 -5 6 . T h is pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce can be m i t i gat ed by a show i ng t hatt he defe ndantacqui es ced i n t he del ay , orcan be r ebut t ed i f t he G overnm ent“af

fi r m at i vel ypr ove[s ] t hatt he del ayl eft[t he defe ndant ’ s ] ab il it y t o defe nd hi m s el f uni m pai r ed. ” I d. at658 & n .1

. I n eval u ati n g w hethert he per i od of del ayw as l ong enough t o t r i gger t hi s “pr es um pt i on of pr ej udi ce, ” the D o g g e tt C ou rtcon si dered b oth t he t otal l eng t h of del ay (over ei gh ty ears ) a n d th e p o rtio n o f

th a t d e lay attrib u tab le to th e G o v e rn m e n t (six y e a rs ). I d. a t 6 5 7 -5 8 . It h e ld th a t th is d e lay w a s lo n g e n o u g h to pr es um e thatt h e r el i abi l i t yof D ogget t ’ s t r i al w oul d be c o m p ro m is e d , a n d th a t D o g g e tt w a s p re ju d ic e d b yth e d e la y
. I

d. A l t hough w e have had few occa s i ons t o cons i derw hatper i od of t i m e i s s uffi ci ent to fi nd pr es um pt i ve pr ej udi ce, w e have det er m i ned t hata four t een- m ont h per i od betw een a r r es tand tr i al is in s u f f ic ie n t. H akee m , 9 9 0 F .2 d a t 7 6 4

. W e n o w h o ld tha t prejud ice w il l be pre su m ed w h en there20 i s a for t y - fi ve- m ont h del ayi n br i ngi ng a def endantt o t r i al , even w hen i tcoul d be ar gued thatonl yt hi r t y - fi ve mont h s of t hat d e l a y i s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o t h e G o v e r n m e n t

. A f t e rs u c h a l o n g d e l a y, w itn e ss e s b e c o m e h a rd e r to lo c a te a n d th e ir m e m o rie s i n e v itab ly fa de

. A s D o g

g e tt re c o g n ize d , the G o v e rn m e n t m a ya ttem p t to r ebutt hi s pr es um pt i on. H ow ever , her e, as i n D o g g e tt , i thas not aff i r m at i vel ypr oved thatt he del ay l eft B at t i s ’ s abi l i t yt o defe nd hi m s el f uni m pai r ed.
B at t i s ’ s pr epar at i on fort he s t at e ca s e dur i ng t he del ay does not , as the G overnm entur ges , al l evi at e anypr ej udi ce s i m pl ybeca us e the cha r ges i n t he s t at e ca s e w er e bas ed on es s ent i al l yt he s ame f

act s as t he fede r al char ges
. Fi r s t , t hatdoes notaddr es s t he r eas on forpr es um i ng pr ej udi ce— t hat t he del ay under m i nes t he bas i c r el i abi l i t yof t he tr i al

. Second, des pi t e the f a c t t h a tt h e f

e d e r a l a n d s t a t e c h a r g e s a r o s e f r o m t h e s a me i nci dent , t he conc erns of B at t i s ’ s couns el i n t he tw o cas es , and their resu lt ing inv esti g ati v e e ff o rt s, w o u ld n ec essa ri lyh ave be en di ffe r ent

. W her eas hi s federal c ouns el w oul d be foc us ed on how B at t i s came t o pos s es s t he w ea p o n, t hatcons i der at i on w ou l d b e of m i nim al si gn i fi cance t o the b ro ader st at e charges,
w hich w ere m ore f

ocu sed on ho w he u sed t he w eapo n. W e al so n o te t h at t h e G o v e rnm en t has n o t i n d icated w h at, if an y , w o rk
w as bei ng done i n connec t i on w i t h t he s t at e court cas e— as i de fr om w or k bei ng done b ya pr i vat e i nves t i gat or , w ho, as expl ai ned above , w oul d not have focus ed on the s ame i s s ues as an inv esti g ator h ir ed b yfe d era l cou n sel. T h e G o v e rn m en t’ s p o sitio n th a t th e w o rk b e in g d o n e re m o v e d a n y p re ju d ice is ent i r el ys pecul at i ve. L as t l y , t he thr eatt o t he r el i abi l i t yof a tr i al i s es peci al l yhi gh w h er e, as her e, t he del ayr es ul t s i n t he defe nd a n t ’ s n o tb e i n g a p p o i n t e d c o u n s e l f o rt h r e e y e a r s a f

t erB a tti s c la im s th a t h e w a s p re ju d ice d b e c a u se a w itn e ss to 9 t h e a l t e r c a t i o n , J o - An Va s q u e z , c o u l d n o tb e l o c a t e d a tt h e t i me of t r i al

. V as quez ha d t ol d a pr i vat e i nv est i gat or , w ho w as w or ki ng for B at t i s i n connec t i on w i t h t he s t at e courtcas e, t hat B at t i s had t aken the gun fr om t he per so n w it h w hom he w as fi ght i ng w hen that p erso n t r i ed t o s hootB at t i s
. H i s t es t i m ony co u ld, th ere fo re, ha v e c o rrob o rated B att is’ s d ef en se. H o w ev er, w h en h e m o v ed to dism iss the i n d ict m en t, B att is d id n o t i n fo rm t he D i s t r i ct C our t t hat V as quez coul d not be l ocat ed. T hi s w as p re su m a b lyb e c a u se h is c o u n s e l h a d n o t h a d a n o p p o rtu n ityto d eterm ine th is. Y et, ev en af ter l ea rnin g ab o u t V asq u ez ’s s t at ement , B at t i s neverr enew ed hi s m ot i on t o di s m i s s
. I ns t ead, he ment i oned V as quez’ s unavai l abi l i t y t o t he C our ti n pas s i ng, i n connec t i on w i t h an evi denti ary m ot i on. N ordi d B at t i s put b e f o re th e D istric t C o u rt e v id e n c e th a t h e h a d “ se rio u sly at t empt ed t o l ocat e” V as quez, as w e r equi r ed i n D ent , 149 F. 3d a t 1 8 5 . T h u s, a lth o u g h it i s tro u b lin g th a t th e le n g th yd e lay i n t hi s cas e ca us ed a w i t nes s favor abl e t o t he def ens e t o be unavai l abl e fort r i al , i t w oul d be di ffi cul t t o cr edi tt hi s cl ai m on a p p e a l.
21 in d ictm e n t.
W e th e r e f

o re c o n c lu d e th a t B a tti s w a s p re su m p tiv e ly pr ej udi ced by t he del ay , and t hat t he four t h B ar kerfac t orw ei ghs ag ains t the G o v ern m en t. A s a re su lt , w e n ee d n o t r ea ch B att is’ s ot hercl ai m s of pr ej udi ce. 9

W e bel i eve t hatal l fourfac t or s of t he B ar kert es tw ei gh a g a in st th e G o v e rn m e n t, an d th a t B a tti s w a s u n c o n stitu tio n a llySi nce w e w i l l i ns t ructt he D i s tr ict C o u rt t o vaca t e the 10 convi ct i on, w e nee d notaddr es s B at t i s ’ s al t erna t i ve ar gum ent t hathe i s ent i t l ed t o a new t r i al beca us e the D i s t r i ctC our terr ed byall o w ing the G overnm entt o i m peac h hi m us i ng a pr i or convi ct i on t hatw as overt en y ear s ol d.
22 dep ri ved of h i s r i gh tt o a spee dy t ri al

. W e w i l l therefore r everse th e ju d g m e n t o f th e D istric t C o u rt a n d re m a n d to th a t C o u rt w ith instruction s to d ism iss th e ind ict m en t and v ac ate B att is’ s convi ct i on. 10