The H onorab le Ro bert M . D o w , J r. , ofthe Un it ed Stat es  Di s t r i c tCo ur tf or the Nor t he r n Di s t r i c to fI l l i no i s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on. 

## In the 

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

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 07

- 4045 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. V IR GIL S MITH, D e f e ndan t

-Appe l l ant
.
A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Indian a, Fo rtWayne D ivisi on.

No . 06 C R 53

—Wi ll iam C. L ee , Judge

.
A RG UE D F EB RU AR Y 9, 2009

— D ECI DE D A UGUS T 11, 2009

Befo re P O SNER an d S YKES, C ircu it Judges , a nd D OW, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  D OW, D i s t rict J udg e . On Decem ber9, 20 02, Vi rg i l S m i th an d f ou r other ind ivi d ua ls too k p a rt i n a ba nk robbery i n Fo rtW ayne, I nd i ana. S m i th ul ti m ate l y was co nvi cted2 N o. 07

- 4045 on t w o counts: ( i ) ar m ed bank ro bbery in v iol ati on o f18 U. S
. C. §§ 2 1 1 3 ( a ) , ( d ) , a n d a i d i n ga n d ab e t t i n gth a ts a me ba nkr o bb er y i n v i o l ation of 1 8 U. S
. C. § 2 ; a nd ( i i ) us i ng a fire ar m d u rin g a n d in re lat ion t o a c r im e o f vio len c e in vi o l at i o n o f 18 U. S
. C. § 92 4( c) , an d ai di ng an d abetti ng the u se o fa fi re ar m duri ng and i n re l ati on t o a cr i m e o f v i o l e nc e i n v i o l a t i o n o f18 U. S
. C. § 2
. S mi th r e c e i v e d a se nt e n c e o f1 0 0 mo n th s ’ i mpr i s o n me n to n th e fi r s tc o unt an d se ve n ye ar s o n th e s ec on d , to b e s er ve d co n se c u tiv ely f o r a t o t a l o f1 8 4 mo n th s ’ i mpr i s o n me n t
. S mi th r a i s e s t wo ar gum ents on a pp eal. F irs t, he c onte nd s that there was i ns uffi ci en t ev i den ce t o s uppo r t a co nv ict i o n o n the se co nd c o unto fthe i ndi ct m en t. S ec o nd, he a ss er ts tha t th e dist ri ct cou rtsho uld have di sm i sse d his o ri gi nal i nd i ctm ent with prej ud i ce und erthe Speedy Tri alA ct. Because we a r e n o tc o n v i n c e d b y e i th e r a r g u me n t, w e a ffi r m.

I . B a c kg r o und Vi r g i lS mi th, Me l v inWo o ds, J erna r d F r ee m an, De M ar cus W hite, and Ras he en Ch il d s w ere inv o lv e d i n th e robbery ofa Bank O ne br anch i n Fo rtW ayne, I nd i ana. S m i th admi tt ed th athe a i d ed i n the r o bb er y , thus c o nc edi ng gu il t on Cou nt O ne of th e ind ictm en t. T he f actu al m atters ati ss ue i n this appe alc o nc ern the pr edi ca te f o r the fi nd i ng o fgui l t o n Count Tw o. I n pa rt icu lar, we m ust f ocus on the te stim on y regar ding the r ol e that S m i th pl ay ed i n the pr e- cr i m e pr epa r at i o ns a nd whe th erhe provi ded the w eap on thatul ti m ate l y was ca rr i ed i nto the b ank duri ng the r obbe ry . The testim ony aga i nst S m i th pro vi ded by the othe r par ti ci pan ts i n the r o bb er y w as no t en ti r el y c o ns i st en tN o. 07

- 4045 3 i n s ev er alr es pec ts
. I n r eg ar d t o the o r i g i n o fthe pl an, W oo ds t e s t i fi e d tha t S mi th c a me t o hi m wi th the i dea of ro b b in g a ba n k t w o m on th s b efo re th e ro b b er y a c tu ally too k p lac e; Fr eem an te sti fi ed that he and Sm i th had thei r fi rs t co nver sat i on r ega rdi ng the r obbe rya co up l e o f w eek s be f or e i t t oo k pla ce; W hi te tes ti fi ed that he was not b ro u gh t in to th e p lan u n t i l e a rly D ec em b er 20 02 . For h is part, S m i th te sti fi ed that he was i n Los An gel es Cou nty Jail u n til N ov em b er 4 or 5, 20 0 2 a n d d id n ot arr ive in For t W ayne unti l sho rt l y b ef or e Thanksg i vi ng. S m i th further tes ti fi ed that Fr eem an and W hi te ap proa ched hi m o n Nov embe r 3 0 o r De ce m be r 1 , 2 00 2 aboutr o bb i ng a ba nka nd the y a sk ed hi m f o r a g un. A cr i ti ca l a r ea o ft es ti m ony c onc erne d the o r i g i n o fthe

. 45 cal iberweapon that w as used du ri ng the r obbe ry . A c c or d in g t o a ll th re e g ov er n m en t w itn es se s, n ot on ly was i t S m i th ’ s i dea t o us e a g un du r i ngthe r o bb ery , b ut he vo l u n tee re d to provi de one. I n f act, al l thr ee tes ti fi ed that, pri orto the ro bber y, theysa w S m i th with the . 45 pis tolthatChild s c ar ri ed i nto the b ank duri ng the r obbe ry. Fre eman al so t es ti fi ed th athe s aw S m i thwi tha se c on d gu n, a .44 c alib er D es er t E ag le t h a t r em ain ed in the t runk o fo ne o fthe get aw ay car s duri ng the r obbe ry . Sm ith te st ified th a t h e p ro vid ed on ly th e D es er t E ag le an d th a t h e k n e w th a t i t d i d n o t wo r k

. O n e o ft he defen se w i tness es, Ravo nd a W eathers poon, te sti fi ed that Fr eem an to ok a . 45 f ro m the house at w h ich she w as sta yi ng i n M ar ch orA pri l o f20 02, al though she di d not know the m ake or m odel

. A notherdefense w i tness , Donya Br o wn, t es ti fi ed th atthe ni g htb efor e th e r o bb er y s he kicked Freem an out of her hou se w he re the five robbers4 N o. 07

- 4045

A c c or di ng t o Fr ee m an’ s t es t i m ony atSm i t h’ s fi rs ttrial, 1 S m i t h to l d F r e e m a n to p u tth e g u n s i n th e tr u n k o f F r e e m a n ’s car. Fr ee m an’ s t es t i m ony i s uni que i n re gar d t o t he ac qui s i t i on of 2 the stole n blue car. Un li ke the other w itness es , Freem an tes ti fie d they did not pic k that car up until aft er t he f ail ed at t em ptt o r ob a ban k onthe s outh s i de o ft own. wer e m ee tingb ec au se he ha d a

. 45 an d sh e ha d a “n o g uns i n the house” rul e. Anothe r t es ti m o ni almatt ero fs i g ni fic an ce was the l o c a t i o n o fthe

. 4 5 o n the da y o fthe r o b b e r y . Wo o ds tes ti fi ed that Sm i th and Fr eem an pi cked hi m u p i n Fr eeman ’ s c a r ( the “ da r kCu t l a s s ” ) , a twh i c h poi nt Wo o ds cl aim s he was i nf o r m ed th atthe g uns wer e i n the tr unk

. F r ee m an, ho wev er, t es ti fi ed th ath e pi ck ed up W oo ds bef or e pi cki ng up Sm i th. Fr eem an al so testi fi ed th at Sm ith putb o ththe

. 45 a nd De se r t Eag l e i n the t r unk ofFr eem an’ s car. W oo ds sta ted thattheypro ceeded to 1 W hi t e ’ s a pa r t men t, a twh i c h t i me S mi th a nd F r e e m an left in the d ark C ut lass. Freem an recall ed that Sm ith left byhi m se l fa nd r etur ne d w i thhi s g i r l f r i en d’ s ca r ( th e “w hi te Sunfi re ”) and Chil ds. A ccor ding to W oo ds, wh en 2 Sm i th and Fr eem an r etur ned, Chil ds w as prese nt and eac h of the thre e m en w a s d rivi ng a car: Freem an , the d ark Cu tl ass ; S m i th, th e w hi te Sunfi re ; and Chil ds, a sto l en bl ue car . W hi te tes ti fi ed that the fou r m en ga ther ed at hi s apa r tment, b utChi l ds and S m i ththe n l eft i n the w hi te Sunfi re and re turned with the s tol en blue car

. A t that poi nt, W hi te sai d that he sa w Sm i th with a . 45 w i thN o. 07

- 4045 5

I n the fi rs tt ri al, W oods m en t i one d a s ec ond ba nk thatthe 3 gr oup a l m os trobbe d pri or t o the e ven t ual r obbe ry ofthe Ban k O ne branch on the north s ide ofFt. W ayne. A t the first t r i a l , W oo d s said tha t Sm ith h an d ed the g u n to 4 C hild s. ane xt en ded m ag az i ne . S m i thl i k ewi se t es ti fi ed th atthe m en m et at W hi te’ s apart m ent the m or ni ng ofthe ro bber y. H e a l so re called g oi ng to W hi te’ s a partm ent with Chil ds, bu t in sep arate ca rs

— Chi l ds i n the st o l enb l ue c ara nd Sm i th i n the w hi te Sun fi re . A defense w i tness , Devon H o o d, s ta te d tha t W o o ds an d F r ee m anpi ck ed him up th at m orning and they sm oked m arij u an a in Freem an ’s c ar w h er e h e o b se rv ed a b lac k p ist ol. The gr oup l eft W hi te’ s a part m en t w i th the i ntenti on o f r o bb i nga b an k o n the s o uth s i de o fF t. W ay ne , b utaba ndoned that p lan wh en the y o bser ved thata pol i ce c ar w as prese n t. W oo ds and W hi te tes ti fi ed that they then pr o ce ede d t o the no r ths i de o f th e ci ty wher e th eymet up i n a b al l fi el d near the ba nk. The te sti m ony diff er s a s 3 to w ho w as p res e n t in w hich car w hile they looked f or a ban k to rob. Yet, allof th e w itn e s s es agreed that before th ey p ro c ee d ed to th e b an k, th ey las t s to p p ed atth e b all fi el d t o final i ze thei r pla ns. W oo ds sta ted that, o nce they ha d gath ered at the b a ll fiel d , Sm ith inform ed the oth ers that he would w ait o u tsi de the bank and w atch f orpol i ce an d told C hilds to get th e . 45 from the tru nk of th e da rk Cu tl ass . W hi te tes ti fi ed that Sm ith hand ed the

. 45 to

4 Ch i l ds i n the Sunfi re . Fre em an te sti fi ed that bef or e they en tered the ba nk , C h ild s o p en ed the tru nk of th e d ark6 N o. 07

- 4045 Cu tl ass and proc ured the .4 5 handgun. S m i th te sti fi ed th at al th o ug h he g av e F r ee m an th e Des er t Eag l e on the m or n in g of t h e r o b b e ry , he n ev er p u t t h e D es er t E ag le in the t runk o fthe Cu tl ass and he nev erga ve Fr eem an the

. 45. Acco r di ng to Sm i th, Chi l ds r et r i ev ed th e . 45 fr o m the Cu t l a s s , a nd S mi th di d not kno w tha tCh i l ds h a d u s e d a gun unti l afterthe ro bber y. W hi l e th e r o bb er y t o o kpl ac e, F r ee m anwas i n the Cut l as s an d S m i thwas i n the S unfi r e, b o th outs i de o fthe b an k. C h ild s, W h i t e a n d W oo d s e n te re d th e b an k. W h ile C h ild s s to od by th e d oo r an d br an d ish ed th e .45 p i s t o l, W hi t e a nd Wo o ds j umpe d o v e r the c o un t e r a nd s e i zed th e m one y. T he three th en l eft the sce ne i n th e stolen car. The fi ve i nd i vi du al s, i n the thre e ca rs , p ro ceeded backto th e ball fi elds w he re they had m et up before t h e robbery a n d d i t c h e d th e s t o l e n c a r . At th a t p o i n t, C h i l ds an d Sm ith w er e in th e c ar w i t hth e m on ey an d th e .45 u se d in th e robbe ry. W ood s, W hite an d Freem an w ere in th e d ark Cut l a s s . As the t wo c a r s we r e e xi t i ngthe a r e a , a p o l i ce officer pu ll ed Freem an ’s car ov er and allthree w ere ar re ste d. Sm i th and Chil ds w er e ab le to l eave the scene. A l though S m i th l ate r w as ar re st ed , Chi l ds w as never apprehended and n ei therthe

. 45 nor the m oney ev er w as re cove re d. W oo ds, Fr eem an, and W hi te ple aded gu ilty an d ag re ed to te st ify a t Sm ith ’s t ria l.

II. P roc ed u ral H is tory Sm ith w as ch ar ge d in 2 00 3 fo r h is ro le in th e ro b b er y. In the o r i g i na l a c t i o n, c a s e n umb e r 0 3

- CR

- 6 , S mi th f i l e d a m oti on s eek i ng to pl ead guil ty on J uly22 , 20 03, wh i chN o. 07

- 4045 7

wa s d e n i e d o n No v e mb e r 1 7, 2 0 0 3
. He th e n fi l e d a m oti on t o dism i ss al l char ges ag ai nst hi m , ar guin g that his right to a spe ed y tri al had been viol ated

. Th e cou rt den i ed th atmot i o n o n De ce m be r 1 0, 2 003, on th e g r o und thatS m i thha d s uff er ed no pr ej udi ce b y the de l ay . The m att erpro ceeded to tri alo n Decem ber17, 20 03. W oo ds, Fr eem an, W hi te, Ravo nd a W eath er spoon, and Donya B r o wnt e s t i fi e d

. S mi th wa s c o n v i c t e d o n the sa me t wo co unt s th atf o rm th e b as i s o fthe pr es en t appe ala nd sente nced to a t er m o fi m pri sonm ent o f22 1 m onths. Sm i th fi l ed hi s no ti ce o fappeal o n M arc h 24, 20 04, ar g ui ngtha t hi s r i g ht s unde r the S pee dy Tr i alAct( “the A ct”) had b ee n v i ol ate d. This Court hel d that a ny vi ol ati on o f t h e A ct was har m l ess . S ee U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 415 F. 3d 682, 68 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)
. A l i m i ted r em and to th e d ist ric t c o u r t follow ed , bu t t h is C ou rtu ltim at ely affi rm ed Sm i th’ s convi ction . S ee U nite d State s v. Sm it h , 1 8 2 Fe d. App x. 5 8 6 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 6 )
. S mi th the n fi l e d a peti ti on f orwri t ofcer ti or ar i
. The S up re m e Cour t g ra nted S m i th ’ s pet i ti o n, v ac at ed th i s C our t’ s j udg m en t, a nd r e m a n d ed the m atter for procee d ings in li gh t of Zed ne rv. U nited Sta tes , 5 47 U. S
. 4 89 , 5 08

- 50 9 ( 20 06 ) , i n whi chthe Court h eld thathar m l ess er ro r i s no t a n appropri ate st an d ar d of re vie w in t h e Sp ee d y T ri a l A c t c on te x t. T h is C ou rtth en rev er s ed Sm ith ’s c on vic tio n, vac at ed h is sente nce, and re m anded the case to the dist ri ct c ourtwith in st ru c tio n s t o d et er m in e w h et h er th e in d ict m en t s h ou ld be di sm i sse d w i th o r w ithout prej ud i ce purs uant to 18 U
. S. C
. § 3162(a)(2)
. On rem and, afterr evi ew in g th e par ti es’ wri tte n subm i ssi ons, the dist ri ct c ourtiss ued a fi ve- page o rderdi s-8 N o. 07

- 4045

m i ssi ng the i nd i ctm ent wi t houtprej ud i ce o n Octobe r 3, 20 06
. The g o ve r nm en t fi l ed a ne w cr i m i na l c o m pl ai nt ag ain st Sm i th o n the sam e day. H e was i nd i cted o n October25 , 20 06, and proc eeded to a bench t ria l that com m enced on Se ptem ber27, 20 07. On O cto ber3, 20 07, the dist ri c t c ourti ssued an o ra l rul i ng. A s the co urt note d, Sm ith conceded his gui l t o n C o u n tO n e . As t o C o u nt Two , th e c o u r tn o t e d t wo vi ab l e th e o r i e s o fth e c a s e , e a c h r e l a t i n gt o o n e o fthe guns ati ssue i n the case . The co urt f ound Sm i th not g ui l tyunde r the “ Des er t Ea g l e” the o r y , e ss en ti al l y fi ndi ng that because the evi dence showed that the “Dese rtEagl e” gun w as kept i n the tr unk ofthe carduri ng the r obbe ry, i t was notused i n the off ense and coul d not s up porta convi cti on o n Count Tw o. H owever, the cour t co ncl ud ed that the “ othe r gun theo ry ”

— re f er ri ng to the

. 45 that was ca r r i ed i nt o the b an k

— did sup porta gui l ty deter m i nati o n o n Co untTwo. The c o ur t ac k no wl edg ed va r i o us confl i cts i n the tes ti m on y a nd r em ar ked thati ts deci si on r es te d o n a “ cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. ” The c o ur t f o und th e th r ee c o - defen dan ts ’ t es ti m o ny t o b e cr edibl e an d Sm i th’ s t est i m ony “not cre dibl e.” The co urt further f ound b ey ond a re aso nabl e doubt that Sm i th was a l ea dera nd o r g an i ze r a nd a n aider a nd abe tt o r a s to the cr i m e o fus i ngthe

. 45 c al ibe r g un du r i ngthe r o bb er y . And on the basi s o fthe tes ti m ony and the co urt’ s fi nd i ngs, the c ourtente re d a fi nd i ng o fgui l ty on Count Tw o.

II I. A n alysis Sm i th pre sents two ar gum ents on a pp eal : ( i ) ther e was i nsuffici ent c re dibl e e vi dence to support a g uil ty ver dictN o. 07

- 4045 9 on Count Tw o and (i i ) th e d ist ri ct c ourtsho uld have dism i sse d the or i gi nal i nd i ctm ent w i th prej ud ice u nd er th e S pee dy Tr i alAct
. W e addr es s ea chi n tur n.

A . Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce Sm i th fi rs t chal l enges the suf fi ci ency ofthe evi dence add uced at tr i ali n supp or t o fthe tr i alcou rt ’s d ecis i on t o co nv i cthi m o n Co untTwo. Acco r di ngt o S m i th, the pros ecuti on witnesse s l acke d c re dibi l i ty and the di str i ct cour t i m p ro perl y r ej ecte d test i m ony that supp or ted an al ter nati ve sour ce o fthe gun thatwas used i n the ro bber y. A s a n i ni ti alm att er, we n ote thatS m i th f aces a ste ep uphi l l cl i m b wi th a su ffi ci en cy o f th e ev i den ce argum en t o n a p p ea l. Se e, e . g. , U ni t e d S t at e s v. H i cks , 3 6 8 F
. 3 d 8 01, 804 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( describi ng the s tand ar d ofr evi ew f aci ng the defendants o n sufficiency ofthe evi dence ar gu m en t a s “ a d au n tin g on e” ); U nited Sta tes v. G a rdn er, 23 8 F .3d 87 8, 87 9 (7 th C ir. 20 01 ) (“In at ta c k i n g t h e s u fficienc y of th e e v id e n ce, a defen d an t bears a h eavy bu rden”). That hea vy burden r efl ects the defe re nce g i ven t o the t ri ero ff act: to o btai n a r eve rs al, the defe nd ant m ust co nv i nc e th e r ev i ewi ngcou rttha t “a fte r v i ewi ngthe ev i d e n c e i n th e l i g h tmo s tf a v o r a b l e t o th e p r o s e c u t i o n, [ no] r ati onaltr i ero ff act coul d h av e fou nd the ess enti al ele m e n t s o f th e c rim e b ey on d a re as on ab le d ou b t.” U nited S ta te s v. C urt is , 32 4 F
. 3d 501, 50 5 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( quoti ng Jackson v. Virgini a , 443 U .S. 30 7, 31 9 (1 97 9)). T h is Court’ s t askther ef or e i s no t t o “w ei gh the evi dence” or to “s ec on d -gu es s” th e t rie r of fa c t. G a rdn er, 23 8 F
. 3d at 879. And w e wi l l o ve r tu r n a co nv i ct i o n b as ed o n i ns uffi ci en t10 N o. 07

- 4045 evi dence onl y i fthe re cor d i s “ dev oi d ofev i dence” fro m w h i ch the tr i ero ff act

— here , the tr i alj ud ge

— c o ul d hav e fou n d gu ilt b ey on d a rea so n ab le d ou b t. C urt is , 32 4 F
. 3d at 505 ( ci ti ng U ni t e d S t at e s v. M e nt i ng, 166 F. 3d 923, 92 8 (7 th C ir. 1999)). Sm i th adm i ts that he parti ci pated i n the r obbe ryand that he p r o vi ded th e Des er t Eag l e g un tha t was l eft i n the tr u n k of t h e C u tla ss d u rin g t h e ro b b er y. T h e q u es tio n is w hetherther e was suffi ci ent e vid ence that Sm i th ai ded an d abe tt ed th e us e o fthe

. 45 tha t was b r o ug hti nt o the b an k. A s w e p re vio u sly h av e e x p lain ed , A defen dan t m ayb e l i ab l e f o r ai di ng an d ab et tingthe us e o fa fi r ea r m i n v i o l at i o n o f§ 9 24 ( c) i fthe g o ve r nm en t pr o ve s th atthe de f en dan t k no wi ng l y a nd i nt en tionally assisted the p rincipa l’ s us e or p ossess ion of a fi r earm d ur i ngthe v i o l en t f el o ny o r dr ugt r affi ck i ng off ense. The de fen dant m ust know , ei therbef or e o r du ri ng the cr i m e, thatthe pri nci pal wil l pos se ss or use a fi re ar m , and then a fteracq u iring know l edge i ntenti onal l y f aci l i tat e the weapon’s posse ssio n or us e. M er el y a i di ng th e unde r l y i ng cr i m e an d k no wi ng th at a gu n w o uld be us ed or carried can not sup p ort a co nv i ct i o n un der1 8 U. S
. C. § 9 24 ( c) , b ec au se the defe nd ant m ust a i d and abet the pos ses si on, o r car ry i ng, o r us e o fthe wea po n. U nite d State s v. D aniel s , 3 70 F. 3d 689, 69 1 ( 7th Ci r. 20 04) ( ci tat i ons and quotati ons om i tte d). I n fi nd i ng Sm i th gui l ty ofai ding and abett i ng, the dist ri ct cou rtst ate d that i ts dispos i ti on bo il ed dow n to cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. A s the di str i ct c ourt sa w i t, S m i th’ s ca se turned o nN o. 07

- 4045 11 whethe r t o b el i ev e S m i tho r the thr ee wi tn es se s f o r the pros ecuti on wh o tes ti fi ed that i t was S m i th’ s idea to us e the gun and that he p rocu red i t. A n d the cou rt si ded with the pro secuti on witn es se s, as was i ts prer oga ti v e a ft e r he a r i ng the t e s t i mon y a nd o b s e r v i ng the witnesse s. Sm i th re cogni zes that the heavy burden that att ends a suf fi ci ency ofthe evi dence chal l enge i s co m pound ed when su cha c ha l l en g e r es ts in l ar g e m ea su r e o n t ak i ng i ssue w i th the tr i ero ff act’ s cr edibi l i ty det er m i nati ons. As thi s Cou r t ha s ex pl ai ne d, we do no t “s ec o nd- g ue ss the trialj ud ge’ s cr edibi l i ty deter m i nati ons. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Fre nch , 2 91 F
. 3d 94 5, 9 51 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 2)
. The r ea so ns f o r thi s d efer en ce a r e m an y : the t r i alj udg e “h as ha d the besto pp or tu n i ty to obs er ve the v erbaland nonverbal behavi oro fthe w i tness es f ocusi ng o n t h e s ubj ect’ s r eacti ons and res ponses to th e int er ro gat or i es, thei r f aci al ex p ressions , a ttitud es, ton e of voice, eye con tact, pos tu re an d bod y move m en ts , a s wel l a s co nfus ed o r ne r vo us spe ec h pa tt erns i n c o nt r as t wi thmer el y l o o k i ng atthe col d pages of an appel l ate r eco rd. ” Id . In sh or t, a r ev i ewi ngc o ur t wi l l s eta si de cr edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o ns on ly if th ey are cle ar ly er ro n e o u s, w h ich oc c u rs “o n ly if the di str i ct c ourthas ‘ chose n to cr edi t e xceedi ngl y i m probabl e t est i m ony. ’ ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Rob i ns on , 31 4 F
. 3d 905, 907 ( 7th C i r. 20 03) ; se e a l so U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br iggs , 27 3 F
. 3d 737, 740 (7th C ir. 2001 ) (exp lai nin g tha t a district cou rt’s deci si on t o cre dito ne witnes s o verano ther“ca n al m ost ne ve r b e cl ea r e r r o r ”)
. A nd te st i m o ny wi l l b e f o und ex ce edi ng l y i m pr o babl e o nl y i fi t is “ i nt erna l l y i nc o nsi ste nt” o r “i m pla usibl e o n i ts f ace. ” S ee U nited Sta t e s v. C a rdo na -R ivera , 904 F.2d 114 9, 1152 ( 7th Cir. 1990).12 N o. 07

- 4045 Sm ith su bm its that th e d istri ct cou rt overlooked nu m erous inconsi ste nci es i n the tes ti m ony ofthe prosecuti on w i tness es an d im proper l y di sco unted Sm i th’ s cr edibi l i ty on i rr el evantf acto rs . W e r ecogn i ze, as di d the di str i ct co ur t, tha t th e te stim o ny o fthe pa r ti ci pan ts i n the ro bber y was notco nsi stent i n eve ryr espect
. S m i th f o cus es o n i nc o ns i st en ci es i n the t es ti m o ny c o nc erni ng th e e v e n t s th a t t o o k p l a c e a t th e b a l l fi e l d b e f o r e t he g r o up pr o ce ede d t o th e ba nk

— an d, i n pa r ti cul ar, ho w the g un g o ti n t o C h i l d s ’ h a n d s . Wo o d s s t a t e d a tth e s e c o nd tr i altha t S m i tht o l d Chi l ds to g etthe

. 45 o utof th e tr unk of Freem an’ s ca r, wh i ch he di d. That te sti m ony i s f ai rly co ns i st en t wi thF r ee m an ’ s te st i m o ny that Chi l ds g o t th e g u n fr o m F r e e ma n ’ s t r u n k

. H o we v e r, Wo o d s wa s i mpea ch ed wi thhi s te sti m o ny fr o m the fi r stt r i al, dur i ng w hi ch he s tat ed that Sm i th handed th e gun to Ch i l ds. I n a ddi ti o n, W hi te t es ti fi ed th atS m ith ha nde d the g un to Ch i l ds w hi l e S m i th was si tti ng i n the Sunfi re . W h il e that t est i m ony does prese nt so m e f actualdi scr epa nc i es , i t i s ne i th eri nt erna l l y i nc o ns i st en t no r i m pl au sibl e. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Woods , 148 F.3d 843 , 847 (7th C ir. 1998 ) ( noti ng tha t e i ghtee n m onth s had passed si nce the r obbe ryand that i t was to b e ex pected that w i tness es w oul d have s l i ghtl y d iff er ent r eco l l ecti ons of e v e n t s a s t he y u n f o l d e d )
. I n a d d i t i o n, a n d mo r e i mport ant, th e tes ti m ony on wh i ch Sm i th f ocuse s doe s no t g o t o the c r i ti ca l i ss ue of w ho pro vi ded th e g un o r the i dea t o use the g un. I t was the pr o se cut i o n’ s co nt en ti on

— w hi ch the trial cour t a ccepted

— that Sm i th pro

vi ded the

. 45. I t doe s no t m att erwh ether, as the fi nal prepar ati ons f or the ro bber y unfo l ded , Ch i l ds w as hand edN o. 07

- 4045 13

D efense counsel ’ s im peachm ent of Freem an m erel y indicat es 5 tha t S m i t h i n st ructed Fr ee m an t o putthe guns i n the t ru nk

— t es t i m ony t hatal s o woul d s uppor ta gui l t y ve rdi c tf or ai di ng a nd abe t t i ng. th e gun o r r et r i ev ed i t f r o m th e tr unk

. As th e tr i alcou rt saw the e vents , witho ut S m i th, the

. 45 w oul d n ot have been at the b al l fi el d at a l l, bec ause al l thr ee pros ecuti on w i tness es tes ti fi ed that they saw Sm i th with the . 45 pri or to the r o bb er y , F r ee m ant es ti fi ed th atS m i thi n f ac t put th e .45 in the tr unk ofthe Cu tl ass o n the day o fthe ro bber y, and W oo ds testifi ed that Sm i th i nstr ucted Chil ds to re tr iev e t h e .45 from Fre em a n ’s t ru n k. A ll of th at te st i- 5 m on y, w h ich th e tria l j u d ge w as fre e to c re d it, a m p ly su ppo r ts the j udg e’ s dec i si o n. W e also cann ot fi nd f au lt w ith th e d istr ic t cou rt’s fi nd i ng tha t Sm ith l acke d cre dibi l i ty. I n re achi ng tha t c on c lu sio n, th e c ou rtn ot ed (i) S m i th ’s d em ea n or in h is vi deo ta ped i nt er r o g at i o n, (i i ) hi s su g g es ti o n tha t th e gr oup proce ed to the Bank One after encounter i ng a pol ice p re sence at anothe r bank, and ( i i i ) the f act that Sm i th ended up with the m oney despi te hi s e ff or ts to c o n v i n c e th e c o u r tth a th e w a s a mi n o r p a r t i c i p a n t
. We r es pec tful l y di sa g r ee w ith S m i th ’ s co nt en ti o n tha t th e l att ertwo f acto rs have no p lausibl e co nnecti on t o a pr op er c r edibi l i tyde te r m i na ti o n. I t appe ar s f r o m the record that the d istri ct j ud ge fel t tha t tha t thos e factors re fl ecte d poor l y o n Sm i th’ s cr edibi l i ty because they m ade l es s be l i ev ab le hi s ex pl an at i o n tha t al th o ug h h e w as i n f ac t in volv ed i n the ro bber y, he was a m i nor pla yer, m er el y a l ong f orthe ri de.14 N o. 07

- 4045 Lik ew i se, we see no er ro r i n the dist ri ct c ourt ’ s deci si on not to cre ditS m i th’ s a rg um ent c oncer ni ng an “alt er nate so ur ce ” o fthe

. 45. Weav i ngt o g ethe r the t es ti m o ny o fthe def e ns e wi t ne s s e s , S mi th c o nt e nd s tha tthe r e was e v id en ce th at Freem an took the .45 from W eath ersp oon’s ho us e an d ha d it in hi s po ss es si o n the ni g htb efo r e th e r o bb er y a nd a g ai n the mor ni ngo fthe r o bb er y . The dist ri ct cou rt co m m ented o n that evi dence and note d that t h e tes ti m ony did not“r eal l y g o[ ] to the hear t o f th e

— co- defe nd ant’ s t est i m ony. ” Accordi ng to Sm i th, that w as n ot a ra tio n al b as is for d isc ou n tin g t h e a lleg ed ly ex c u lp at or y e vid en c e. W e d isa gr ee . Th er e w as n o t es tim ony as to th e m ake o r m odel o fthe

. 45 that Fr eem an al l eg edl y t o o ke i g ht m o nths b efo r e th e r o bb er y , a nd ther ef or e there i s no support f orthe position thatthe

. 45 that w as i n Fr eem an’ s pos ses si on m onths ear l i erm ust h av e b ee n th e s am e .45 th at w as ta ke n int o t h e b an k. In add i ti on, Free m an d eni ed that he ev erst ol e the . 45, wh i ch the t ri alco urt coul d have a ccepted. I n an y e vent, ev en assu m ing tha t the testim ony to w hich Sm ith p oin ts p erta ined to the s ame gun, i t m er el y s ho ws tha t so m eo ne o th ertha n S m i thwas ho l di ngi t the d ay be f o r e an d the m or ni ng o fthe robb er y. The tr i alco urt thus was cor re ct in observin g tha t Sm ith’s alternat iv e sourc e the ory do e s no t “ g o t o the he a r t ” o f the c a s e a g a i ns t S m i th

— na m ely, the co-d efend an ts’ testim ony that i t w as Sm ith’s i dea to use the . 45 and that he pro cured i t f orthe ro bber y. I n s um , thr ee w itness es i den ti fi ed S m i tha s th e i nd i vi du al w ho prese nted the i dea to use the gun a nd then p rovide d the .45 that w as u sed i n th e r o b b e ry. Sm ith’s co uns elc r o ss - ex ami ne d the wi tn es se s an d poi nt ed o ut som e di scr epanci es i n thei r tes ti m ony, tho ugh none w asN o. 07

- 4045 15 fatal, either i nd ivi d ua ll y or col lectively. Th e d istrict cou rt al so he ar d fr o m a nd o bs er ve d S m i th

. At the e nd of th e case , the cou rt chose t o cre ditthe tes ti m ony ofW oo ds, Fr eem an, and W hi te ove r the t est i m ony of Sm ith, w hi ch was the c o ur t’ s pr er o g at i ve . The de ci si o n t o c r edi t th e p lau sib le t es tim on y of o n e w itn e s s o v er th e p lau sib le te st im on y of a n ot h er “c an alm os t n ev er be cle ar err or .” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Br iggs , 27 3 F
. 3d 73 7, 74 0 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 1)
. And th e f a c t s o f th i s c a s e d o n o t p r e s e n t o n e o f th e r ar e i nsta nces ofcl earer ro r, f orther e was nothi ng “e xceedi ng ly i m probabl e” about the test i m ony ofthe pros ecuti on w i tness es.

B. Speedy Tr i al A ct Sm i th al so chal l enges the dist ri ct c ourt’ s deci si on t o dism i ss the fi rs t i nd i ctm ent wit houtprej ud i ce, i nstead of w it h prejud ice. A s note d above, t h a t issu e cam e before th e d ist ric t c ou rtaft er th e Su p re m e C ou rtva c at ed th is C o u r t ’ s j u d g me n to n S mi th ’ s o r i g i n a l c o n v i c t i o n . We th env ac at ed hi s se nt en ce a nd r emande d the ca se t o the di st r i ctc o ur t. On r emand, the d i st r i ctc o ur t to o kb r i efi ng f ro m the parti es and i ssued a fi ve- page wri tte n or der i n w hi ch it concl ud ed that the ind i ctm ent s houl d be di s mi s s e d wi tho utp r ej ud i ce p ur s ua ntt o 1 8 U. S
. C. § 31 6 2 ( a ) ( 2 )
. We r e v i e w tha tde c i s i o n f o r ab us e o fdi s c r eti on. S ee U ni t e d S t at e s v. Tayl or, 487 U
. S . 3 26, 335 ( 1988 ); U nite d Sta te s v . Killi ngswo rth , 507 F.3d 108 7, 1090 ( 7th Cir. 2007 ). Under the pe r tine nts ta tu to r y a nd de ci si o na l l aw, the d i s t r i c tc o u r twa s r e q u i r e d t o c o n s i d e r th e f o l l o wi ng16 N o. 07

- 4045 f acto rs i n m aki ng i ts deter m i nati on: ( i ) the ser i ousness ofthe offense; ( i i ) the f acts and ci rcum sta nces w hi ch l ed to the di sm i ssa l ; and (iii) the i m pact o fr epro secuti on o n th e admi ni st r at i o n o fthe S pee dy Tr i alA ct an d o n the a d m inistration of j us tice. See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3162(a)(2) ; Taylo r, 48 7 U.S . at 3 33. “[ A ] di str i ct c ourtm ust ca re full y c onsi der those fact or s a s a pp l i ed to the parti cul ar c as e a n d , w h at ev er its d ec isio n, cle a r ly a rt icu lat e t h eir eff ect i n or der t o perm i t m eani ngful appell ate r evi ew . ” Id

. at 336. Because the di str i ct c ourt ’ s t aski n vo l ves ap p lyi ng l aw to f acts , t his C ou rt m us t “u nd ertake m ore s ubstant i v e s c r ut i nyt o e ns ur e tha tthe j ud g men ti s s up port ed i n ter m s o fthe f acto rs i denti fi ed i n the sta tute. ” Id

. at 337. “N everth eless, w he n th e statu tory factors are proper l y c onsi d ered, and supp or ti ng f actualfi nd i ngs ar e no t cl ear l y i n er ro r, t h e d i str i ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm ent o f ho w o pp o s i ng c o ns i de r a t i o ns b a l a nc e s ho ul d no tbe l i ghtl y di sturbed. ” Id

. S m i thdo es no t co nt en d, no r c o ul d he i n g o o d f ai th, th atthe di st r i ctc o ur t f ai l ed to pr o per l y c o ns i dera nd ar ti cul ate i ts fi nd i ngs o n the fi rs t t w o f acto rs . S m i th c oncedes, as he di d at the di str i ct c ourtl eve l, thatar m ed ba nk r o bb er y i s a se r i o us o ff en se . The di st r i ct cou rt co ncu rred , noting that the seriousn ess of th e crim e w as “selfevi dent. ” The dist ri ct cour t al so agr eed w i th Sm ith o n the s eco nd f acto r, fi nd i ng that the v i ol ati on o fthe A ct was not the re sul t of bad f ai th on the part ofth e g ove rnm ent. T he tim e all otted un d er th e A ct si m p ly “ran ou t in ad vertentl y. ” The co urt note d that the def en dant’s si l ence und er sco re d the unw i tti ng nature ofthe del ay and subsequ en t viol ation. For th ose reason s, th e d istri ct cou rtN o. 07

- 4045 17 concl ud ed that “dis m i ssa l with p rej ud i ce woul d not ser ve an y p u rpos e o fenco urag i ng the go ver nm ent t o av oid n eg lec t o r b ad fait h in t h e p ro se c u tio n of its ca se s.” Sm i th’ s a rg um ent f orr eve rs alt hus neces sar i l y f ocuse s on th e third f acto r. H e m aintain s tha t t h e d is trict court f ai l ed to c o ns i derthe i m pac t o f r epr o se cut i o n o n the a dmi ni s t r a t i o n o fthe S pe e dy T r i a l Ac ta nd o n the a dm i ni str ati on ofj usti ce. Sm i th’ s arg um ent i s p re dica ted o n a fai rly no v e l th eory

— that w hen a Speedy Tri alA ct vi o l at i o n i s r es o l ve d i n a de f en dan t’ s f av o r a fte r a l en g th y ap p eals proc ess, the d istri ct cou rt’s analysis ofth e third f acto r sh ou ld enco m pass the ti m e s pent on appeal, not j us t th e l en g tho fthe pe r i o d t riggeri ngthe unde r l y i ng vi o l at i o n. I n f ac t, the di st r i ctc o ur t di d c o ns i derb o th p er i o ds, b ut it acco r ded l es s wei g htt o the a ppel l at e del aytha n t o the i ni ti aldel ay i n the tr i alco urt. I t dete rm i ned that al though th e f o ur y ea r dur at i o n o fth e a p pea l s pr o ce ss a ff ec te d the ad m i ni str ati on o fj usti ce

— and thus coul d not be di scounted al tog ether

— th at p er iod w as les s sign ifica n t in th e ca l cul us ( an d thus e nt itl ed to l es s wei g ht ) tha n the excess i ve del ay that led to the S peedy Tri alA ct v i ol ati on i n the fi rs t pl ace. That bi furcat ed approach w as prem i sed on the co urt’ s be l i efthatS ecti on 3 162( a) ( 2) is concerned pr i m ar i l y wi ththe s ev en tyda y pe r iod setf o r thi n the statu tory t e xt
. W e con clud e tha t the district cou rt’s re lat ive w eig h tin g w as r e a s on ab le a n d d o n ot d et ec t in the s tatute o r case la w any m andate t o gi ve equal o r m or e wei ght t o appell ate del ays as co m pared to tr i al del ays . I nd eed, al th ough the S up re m e Cour t di d not18 N o. 07

- 4045 expli ci tl y a dd re ss the i ssue, the dist ri ct c ourtwas on sol i d gro u n d i n re ading Taylo ra s a tl e a s ti mpl i c i t l y s up p or tin g t h e v iew t h a t t h e Se c tio n 31 62 (a)( 2) a n aly sis shoul d fo cus m or e o n the del ay giv in g ris e t o the v i ol ation i n the tr i al cour t than on the l ength of ti m e sp en t in the a pp el l ate pro cess . S ee Taylo r, 48 7 U.S
. at33 6. U sing th e fram ew ork d escribed abov e, th e d istri ct cou rt concl ud ed tha t th e i m pact o fthe Speedy Tri alA ct vi o l at i o n o fb etwee n s i x a nd thi r tyda y s was min i m ala nd th atS m i thha d f ai l ed to e st ab l i shtha t he ha d b ee n pr ej udice d by that del ay. S m ith d oes notco ntestthatfi nd i ng. T h e c ou rtth en tu rn ed to th e p er iod of tim e s p en t in ap p eals. Sm ith’s con ten tion th a t t he district cou rt un d erva lu ed the i m pact o fthi s del ay

— and i n f act shoul d have fou n d it to be p re su m p tiv ely p rej u d ici al

— re l i es p rin c ip ally o n D ogg et t v. U nited Sta tes, 505 U
. S. 647 ( 1992 )
. T h at ca se i nvolv ed a n ei ght a nd a hal fye ardel ay between i nd i ctm ent a nd ar re st, wh i ch l ed to co ncer ns abo ut the f ai rnes s ofadj ud i cati on, i ncl ud i ng di m i ni shed m em or ies and l oss of p ot en tia lly ex c u lp at or y e vid en c e. Id

. a t 65 4. But S m i th ’ s r el i an ce o n D ogg et ti s m i spl aced f orse ver alr easons. M o sti m portan tl y , the r e ha d b ee n n o t r i ali n D ogg et t to m em or i al i ze tes ti m ony. By co ntra st, S m i th had such a t ri al

. A s a r esul t, the dist ri ct c ourto bser ved that [ t] he ev i dence and the w i tnesses ’ testi m ony has be en p reserved by virtue of the e a r li er tri al, so that there i s no r eas on t o bel i eve tha t a n ew tr i alwould be com prom i sed. In a ny ev ent, i t i s the go ver nm ent that ha s the m ost to lose by the d elay: “p rosecu tor bears a hea vy burden ofpersuasi on, and the degra dati onN o. 07

- 4045 19 ofev i d en c e g ener al l y c uts a gai nst the par ty w i th th e b u rd en .” T he conc ern ex p ressed i n Doggett that “exces si ve del ay presu m p tiv ely co m p ro m ise s t h e re liab ility of a t r i a l in w ays tha t ne i th erpa r tyc anpr o ve , o r f o r tha t m at te r, i denti fy” ( id . a t 6 55) thus a pp l i es w i th f arl ess f or ce w hen a defe nd ant has a previ ous tri alr eco rd with which to w or k. S m i thne ve r th el es s m ai nt ai ns tha t th e impacto fthe appell ate del ay w as not sl i ght a nd thati t was used as an ex cus e to pr es en t inco ns i st en t ev i den ce . Tha t ar g um en t f ai l s t o p e r s u a d e b e c a u s e , a s th e d i s t r i c t c o u r t n o t e d, a ny pr i o r i nc o ns i st en t te st i m o ny c ou ld be u se d f o r i m pea ch

m ent purpos es i n the seco nd tr i al

. That i s pre ci sel y what occur re d. Defe nse c ounseli m peached the pros ecution w i tness es w henevertheys tr aye d fr om thei r or i gi nal tes ti m ony. D ogg et ta l so i s f ac tu al l y di st i ng ui sh ab l e be ca us e th e del ayi n tha t ca se was ne ar l y t wi ce a s l o nga s th e f o ur y e a r s tha t Sm i th ’ s c a s e wa s o n a pp e a l

. We a c c e pt Sm i th ’s p oi nt thata del ay off our and a hal fye ar s m ay be p rej ud ici al i n ce rtain situa tio n s . U nd er Taylo r, thes e m atter s ca n be consi dered o nl y o n a c ase -by- case bas i s. Bu t we ar e no t per su aded that thi s ca se prese nts o ne o f th os e s itu at ion s. A c kn ow led gin g t h at h is d ela y w as h alf th at en dur ed bythe de f en dan t i n D ogg et t, S m i th ci tes a c as e in w h ich th e c ou rt fou n d th at a te n m on th d ela y in rul i ng o n a m oti on t o supp re ss const i tuted del ay. S ee U nited S ta tes v . M o ss , 21 7 F
. 3d 426 ( 6th Ci r. 20 00)
. N otabl y, an d fat ally to P lain t i f f ’s a rg u m en t, M o ss f o cus ed o n the20 N o. 07

- 4045 eff ect ofthe del ay tr i gge ri ng the underl yi ng S peedy Tri al Ac tv i o l a t i o n . T h e b e t t e r c o mp a r i s o n h e r e i s t he t i me peri od ofbet w ee n s ix and thi rty days thatga ve ri se to the S peedy Tri alA ct v i ol ati on, n ot t he f our yea rs that i t t oo k f orthe appell ate pro cess to r un i ts cour se. W e ha ve s ta te d b ef o r e th ata n “ o pen - en ded l i st ” o fthe sort d raw n u p by C ong ress in Section 3162 “im bu es a cou rt w i th gr ea t d i scr eti on. ” U nite d State s v. Fountain , 84 0 F
. 2d 50 9, 5 12 ( 7th Cir. 1 988)
. I n e xe r ci singtha t di sc r et i o n, the di str i ct c ourtdi d not “ i gnor e[ ] or slight[ ] a f acto r that Congre ss has deem ed pert i nent.” Taylo r, 48 7 U.S
. at 337. To the co ntra ry, the cour t carefull y c onsi dered ea ch f ac to r i n l i g hto fthe a r g um en ts o fthe pa r ti es a nd e xpl aine d the r at i o na l e f o r i ts de te r m i na tio n tha t th e f acto rs w ei ghed stro ngl y i n f avo r ofd i sm i ssi ng the i nd i ctm en t wi th o utpr ej udi ce . See i ngno c l ea r l y e r r o ne o us f ac tu al fi ndi ng s an d no ab us e o f di sc r et i o n i n the c o u r t ’ s fi n a l d e c i s i o n, w e w i l l a ffi r m.

I V . Concl usio n Beca u se w e a re notper suaded that the ev i dence presente d at t ri alwas i nsuffi c ien t to susta i n Sm i th’ s co nvi cti on o n Count I Io r that the di str i ct cou rt a b used i ts discre ti on i n d i sm i ssi ng the o ri gi nal i nd i ctm ent o fS m i th w i thout prej ud i ce, the j ud gm ent o fthe dist ri ct c ourti s A FFI RMED .
8- 11- 09