Ci rc ui tJ udge Ter en c e T. E vans d i ed on August10, 20 11 , an d  d id no t p a r t i cip ate in the d ecision of this case, w hich is b ei n g re so lv ed b y a q u o ru m o f th e p a n el u n d er 28 U .S.C . § 4 6 (d ).



## 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. 09

- 2476 U NI T ED S TATE SOF A MERI CA, P la intif f-A pp ellee, v. A Z UR EE I AH O ’C ON NO R, D ef endant-Appellant.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 05 C R 672-5

—E lai ne E . Bu cklo, Judg e.
A RGUED A PRI L 7, 2010

— D ECI DE D S EP TE MBE R 1, 2011

Befo re W OO D , E VANS , a nd S YKES, C ircu it Judges .  S YKES, Cir cu i tJudg e . Azur eei ahO’ Conno r was c o nvi cted bya j ury ofwir e fra u d a n d app eal s herco nvi cti on on m ult i ple gr ounds. S he f ocuse s fi rs t o n th e 1 , 229- day del ay between the date the l asto fherco defen d an ts2 N o. 09

- 2476

was a r r ai g ne d a nd the s ta r t o fhe r t r i al, a de l aytha t sh e conte nd s v i ol ate d the S peedy Tri alA ct ( the “ A c t” ), 18 U. S
. C. § § 3 1 6 1 et seq . , and herr i ght t o a s peedy tr i al und erthe Si xth A m en d m en t. S he a l so c ha l l en g es the j ury i nstr ucti ons, the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence to su st ain h erc o nv i ct i o n, a nd th e fo r m o fthe i ndi ct m en t that w ent t o the j ury. The S pee dy Tr i alActc l ai m i s th e m ain e ve nt
. The A c t g en er ally req u ire s t h at tria ls c om m en c e w ith in 70 da y s o fa de fen dan t’ s ar r ai g nm en t o r i ndictm ent ( w hi cheveri s l ate r), but al so perm i ts dist ri ct c ourt s t o excl ud e ce rt ai n peri ods o fti m e fro m thi s 7 0- day cl ock

. Se ei d. § 3161 ( h) ( 7)
. I n a s er i es o fc o nt i nua nc es , the dis tr ict cour t e xcl ud ed al l 1, 229 days a nd l ate r denie d O’Connor’ s m oti on t o dism i ss on Sp ee dy Tri alA ct g r o unds

. On appe alO’C onno r c ha l l en g es many o fthe cour t’ s e xcl usi ons, but revi ew o fso m e o fthe cl ai m ed vio lat ion s is h am p er ed by h er failu re to rais e t h em in the di str i ct c ourt
. To pr ese rv e a n al l ege d S p eedy Tr i al Act vi o l at i o n f o r a ppeal, th e Act r equi r es the de fen dan t to m ove to d ism i ss pri orto tr i aland ge nera l l y ( w i th one excepti on) pl aces the burden o n the defe nd ant t o pr ove the vi ol ati on. A ny vi ol ati on notpre ser ved by a m ot ion to d ism iss is w aiv ed

. Id. § 3162 (a)( 2). O’ Conno r ’ s m o ti o n t o di smi ss c ha l l en g ed j us t o ne of the cour t’ s continuances; on appeal she a dvances se ve ra l add it ional viol ations th at sh e d id n ot iden tify bel ow. H erf ai l ure to speci fi cal l y i denti fy the ad d i ti onal vi ol ati ons i n herm otion m ay precl ud e a pp el l ate r evi ew u n d er th e A c t’s w a ive r p ro vis ion ; at t h e v er y lea st, i t isN o. 09

- 2476 3

a f o r fei tu r e, a nd r ev i ew wou ld be l i m i te d t o the pl ainer ro r sta nd ar d. Either w ay, O’Connorcannotpre va il. A l though the go ver nm ent c once d es that one excl usi on o ft i me

— f o r 4 2 days

— was i m pr o per, tha t er r o r a l o ne d oesn’tput O’Connor ’ s t ri alo utsi de the sta tute’ s 7 0- day l i m i t. A s t o th e o thercl ai m ed vi ol ati ons, O’Connor has not est abl i shed that the c onti nuances am ounted to error, l et alone p lai n error. O ne pa rticular cha ll en ge, how ever, r elates to an inte rve ni ngc ha ng e i n the l aw a nd de se r ve s spe ci alme nt io n. O’Connor ar gues that t he co urt i m proper l y e xcl ud ed tw o ti m e peri ods att ributabl e to prepar ati on ofpre tr i al m oti ons w i thout m aki ng the fin dings r equi re d und er § 31 61 ( h) ( 7) , th e pr o vi si o n th at br o adl y au th o r i ze s the cour t t o excl ud e t i m e fro m the speedy- tr i alcl ockbas ed on the “e nd s o fj usti ce. ” See B lo a te v. U nited Sta tes , 13 0 S
. Ct. 13 45 , 135 7-5 8 (2 01 0). U n d er circ u it p re c ed en t t h en in effect, thes e del ays were autom ati cal l y e xcl ud abl e under a differ ent provi si on of the A ct author i zi ng the ex c lusi on oft i m e fo r “d ela y re su ltin g fro m an y p re tr ial m ot ion .” See 18 U
. S. C
. § 3161(h)(1)( D ); U nited S ta tes v. Tibbo el , 753 F.2d 608, 610 (7th Cir. 1985 ). B ut the Su p rem e C ou rt’s dec i si o n in B loatedi s pl a c e d T ibb oel and app l i es to case s (like O ’C on n or ’s) p en d in g o n d ire c t re vie w . See U nited St at e s v. Towns e nd, 419 F.3d 663 , 665 (7th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). Because O’ Connor f ai l ed to i dent ify these parti cul ar vi ol ati ons i n herm oti on t o dism i ss, our r evi ew i s ( at m o st ) f o r pl ain e r r o r . As t o the fi r sto fthe se c ont inuan ce s, we fi nd no e r r o r a t al l ; the c o ur t m ade s uffi ci en t fi nd i ng s t o s a t i s fy § 3 1 6 1 ( h) ( 7 ) a nd B loate

. As to the4 N o. 09

- 2476

se c on d , th e c on tin u an c e w a s f or on ly 1 1 d ay s a n d d id not pu t the to talo verthe 70- day st atuto ryl i m i t. W e a l so rej ect O’Connor’ s S i xth A m endm ent s peedytr i alcl ai m , as wellas hercha llenges t o the j ury i nstr ucti ons, the suffi ci ency ofthe evi dence, and the f or m o f th e ind ict m e nt that w en t to the j ury room . W e the refore affi r m O’ Conno r ’ s co nv i ct i o n.

I . B a c kg r o und On Jul y 2 5, 20 05, O’Conn or and ei ght c odefendants we re charg e d in a 1 3

- c o un ti nd i c t men twi th mai l fr a ud , w i re fra ud , and fi l i ng f al se l oan a p pli cati ons i n vi ol ati on o f1 8 U
. S. C. § § 13 41 , 1 34 3, a nd 1 01 4. The i ndi ct m en t al l eg ed th at O’ Conno r pa r ti ci pat ed i n amor tg ag e- f r au d schem e m ast er m i nd ed by her codefendant Shaun Cro ss. O’ Conno r, who wor k ed as a mor tg ag e- l o ano ffi ce r a nd h e l p e d t o f a c i l i t a t e th e fr a u d , w a s c h a r g e d w i th t wo counts of w i re f ra ud as an ai der and abettor in vio l ati on of18 U
. S. C. §§ 1343 and 2. O’Connor’ s tr i al did not begin unti l J anuary 2009 , th ree and a half ye ars afterheri nd i ctm ent. The co m ple xi ty of th e case, sch ed uling p roblem s, gu il ty p leas by O ’Con nor’s codefendants, and other contingenci es led to a ser i es o fc o n t i n u a n c e s i n wh i c h th e c o u r te x c l u d e d a l l t i me f ro m A ugust 2 2, 20 05

— the day O’Connor’ s s peedytr ia l c l o ckb eg ant o r un

— unti lJ anuary5, 20 09,N o. 09

- 2476 5

In a c ase i nvo lving m ore than one defe nd ant, “the s peed y tri al 1 c l oc k f or al l defen dant s typi c al l y doe s no tbe gi n t o r un un t i l the las t of the defe nd ants app ears . ” Uni t e d S t a t e s v . Ada ms , 625 F. 3d 3 71 , 37 7 ( 7th Ci r. 20 10 )
. The l as tofO’ Co nno r’ s c odefen dan ts w as arrai gned on Au gust 22, 2005. the day O’Connor’ s t ri alb eg an . M uch ofthe del ay w as 1 att ributabl e t o gui l ty- ple a pro ceedi ngs invol vi ng her co defen dan ts ; mos t pl ea ded g ui l tyb etw ee n 2 00 6 an d ear l y 2 008, and the fi nal co defe nd ant pl eaded gui l ty on M ar ch6 , 2 00 8. Af ter th es e g ui l typl ea s, the g o ve r nm ent dism i sse d one o fthe w i re - f ra ud co unts ag ai nst O’ Conno r . Thu s, whatb eg an as a ni ne - defen dan t, thi r te en c o u n tmo r t g a g e - f r a u d p r o s e c u t i o n wa s wh i t t l e d d o wn to a sin gle -d efe n d an t, on e-c ou n t c as e fo r tr ial. On the e v e o f t r i a l, O’ Co nn o r fi l e d a mot i on t o d ism iss b as ed on th e Sp ee d y Tr ial A c t. H er m ot ion c h a ll en g ed o nl y o ne o fthe c o ur t’ s ex cl us io ns o ft i m e: The j ud ge’ s deci si on t o re setth e tri aldate f ro m S eptem ber4, 2008 , t o J anuary5, 20 09, “i n the i nter esto fj usti ce for tr i alpre parat i on” und er 18 U
. S. C. § 3 161( h)( 7)
. J ust bef or e s tar tin g j u ry s ele c tio n, the cour t deni ed O’ Co nn o r ’ s mo t i o n, c l a r i fy i ngtha tthi s c o nt i nu a nc e was ac tu al l y g r an te d unde r § 31 61( h) ( 3) ( A) ba se d o n the una va i l ab i l i tyo fa n e ss en ti alg o ve r nm en t wi tn es s an d w as not an “e nd s o fj usti ce” continu ance under § 3161 (h)(7)

. Tr i alb eg ano n J an ua r y 5 a nd l as te d f ourda y s. The govern m en t’s eviden ce p rovide d a det ail ed accou n t of a s u s t a i n e d f r a u d u l e n t s c h e me s p a n n i n g mo r e th a n t wo6 N o. 09

- 2476 yea rs , fro m S eptem ber20 00 to J anuary20 03, and or gani zed by C ross, a m ortgage broker. T he fraud involved m ore than $6 m i l lion in m or tga ge l oans i n 35 tr ansact i ons on 17r es i den ti alpr o per ti es us i ng th e na m es o f1 7 di ffer en t st r aw b uyers. The l o an s wer e pr o vi ded by2 3 ba nk s an d reside nt ial lend ers, an d C ross p aid the stra w b u y ers $5,0 00 fo r the use o fthei r nam es and Soc i alS ecuri ty number s. S o m e st r aw b uy er s a l so s i g ne d the fr au dul en t m ortgage-loan d ocu m en ts. C ross told th e straw bu yers that he would r epurchase the hom es w i th in a few m o nths a nd mak e th e m o r tg ag e pay m en ts in the i nte r i m. Aft e r e a c h t r a n s a c t i o n c l o s e d , C r o s s r e c e i v e d t he m or tga ge fund s thro ugh ti tl e- i nsura n ce c om panie s that he o wned, k eptthe mone y, a nd di d no t m ake the m or tga ge paym ents. H e a l so u se d the s tr aw buye rs ’ i denti ti es to f ra ud ule ntl y obtain additio nal m or tga ges . The other defe nd ants, i ncl ud i ng O’ Connor, ac te d as “r ec r ui te r s” who e nl i st ed st r aw b uy er s to f al se l y put m or tga ges i n thei r nam es. A t the ti m e the fra ud ule nt sc h em e w as car ri ed out, O’C onnorworke d as a l oan offi ceratExp re ss M or tga ge C om pany and H om e F i rs t M or tga ge Com pany, l i censed m o r tg age bro k er s. The e vi den ce e st ab l i sh ed th ats he p rocess ed seve n frau d ulen t loan p acka ges an d f orw ar ded them o n to l enders f orfund i ng with knowle dge that th e i denti ti es ofthe buyer s in the l oan packag es wer e f al se a nd tha t Cr o ss was the real p ur ch as er . The l oans w er e e ventual ly pla ced i n defa ult

. I n exchange f orheras si sta nce, O’Connor re c ei ved r oughl y $ 20, 000 i n ki ckba cks f ro m Cro ss.N o. 09

- 2476 7 T he j ury co nv icted O’C onn or ofone cou nt of w ire f ra ud , and she w as sente nced to 50 m onths’ i m pri sonm ent. Cross , the m ast er m i nd o fthe m or tga ge- f ra ud sche m e, re cei ved the l onge st sente nce ofany ofthe codefendants

— 14 0 m on th s. See U nited Sta tes v. C ross , 27 3 F
. A pp ’ x 557 ( 7 th Ci r . 2 0 0 8 )
. T hi s a pp e a l f o l l o we d.

I I . Discussi on A . Speedy Tr i al A ct The pri m ar y i ssue on a pp eali s O’ Connor’ s chal l enge to the di st ric t co urt’ s deni alo fherm oti on t o dism i ss u n d er th e Sp ee d y T r i al A c t. O u r re vie w is ge n er ally d e n ov o, Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Napado w , 5 96 F. 3d 398, 40 2 ( 7th Cir
. 20 10) , but f actualfi nd i ngs a re r evie w ed f orcl ear er ro r, U ni t e d S t at e s v. Ki ng, 3 38 F.3d 79 4, 797 (7th Cir. 2003). The A ct r equi re s cr i m i nal tr i al s t o begin w ith i n 70 days oft h e indi ctm ent o r the defendant’s i ni ti alappeara nce, w hi chevero ccurs l ate r. 18 U
. S. C. § 3 161( c) (1). W here , as her e, the defe nd ant i s j ointl y charg ed w i th co defen dan ts , the sp eed y-tri al clock st ar ts whenthe l as t co defen dan t i s i ndi ct ed or a r r ai g ne d, s o l o nga s th e i nter veni ng del ay i s “ re aso n ab le. ” Id. § 31 61 (h )(6) . I f the defe nd ant i s not bro ught to tr i al w i thi n the 70 days spe ci fi ed i n the Act, “ th e i nf o r m at i o n o r i ndi ct m en t shal l be dism i ss ed o n m oti on o fthe defe nd ant. ” Id. § 3 16 2(a )(2) . Th e A c t re c og n ize s, h ow ev er , th at c e r t ain d e l a y s a r e j u s t i fi a b l e a n d p e r mi t s th e s e p e r i o d s o ft i me to b e ex c lu d ed fro m th e 70-d a y c l o c k. Id. § 31 61 (h ); see also Bloate, 130 S. C t. at 13 51 -52 ; N apado w , 59 6 F
. 3d at 402.8 N o. 09

- 2476

Th e Ac t was a m e nd e d i n 2 0 0 8 , a nd the e nd s - of

-j us t i c e s ub

2 se ct ion was renum bered fr om § 3161( h) ( 8) to § 3161( h) ( 7). M ostofthe dist ri ctc o u rt ’s m inute orders r eferenc e s ub se cti on ( h) ( 8) , but be cause thi s am endm ent w as not s ub st anti ve, w e r efe r t o th e e n d s-o f-ju sti ce su b se ct io n as (h)(7 ). Tw o provi si ons ofthe A ct ar e p ar ti cul ar l y r el evantto thi s a pp eal

. The fi rs t i s know n as the “ ends ofj usti ce” provi si on, wh i ch perm its the cour t t o excl ud e del ays r es ul tingfr o m c o nt i nua nc es g r an te d “ o n the b as i s o f[ th e j ud ge’ s] fi nd i ngs that the e nd s o fj usti ce s er ved by ta k i ngs ucha ct i o n o ut wei g h the b es t i nt er est of the pu b l i c a nd the de fe nd a nti n a s pe e dy t r i a l

. ” 18 U. S
. C. § 3 161( h)( 7) ( A )
. The A ct o utl i nes s eve ra l f acto rs the tr i al 2 j u d g e s h o u l d c o n s i d e r i n d e t e r mi n i n g wh e th e r t o g r an t ane nds

- o f

-j us ti ce c o nt i nua nc e, i nc l udi ng“ [ w]h ethe r the f ai l ur e to g ran t s uc h a c o nt i nua nc e . . . woul d de ny th e d efe n d an t re as on ab le t im e t o ob ta in c o u n se l, w ou ld unr ea so nabl y deny the de fen dan t o r the Go ve r nm en t co nt i nui tyo fc o uns el, o r woul d de ny c ou ns elf o r the defe nd ant o r the a tto rneyf orthe Gover nm ent the r easonab l e t i m e nec essar y for effecti ve prepar ati on . . . . ” Id. § 3 161( h)( 7) ( B)( i v)
. The st atute r equi re s the co urt to “s e[t ] for th , in th e rec or d of th e ca se , eit h er or ally o r in wri t i n g, i t s r e a s o n s ” f o r g r a n t i n ga n e n d s - o f

-j u s t i c e c o ntin u an c e. Id. § 3 161( h)( 7) ( A )
. The S up re m e Cour t has d et er m in ed th a t “ th e A c t is am b igu ou s o n p re c ise ly w h en [th e re q u ire d ] find in gs m u st be ‘s e [t] fo rt h [] in th e re c or d of th e c as e.’ ” Z edn er v. U nited S t a tes , 547 U
. S. 48 9, 5 07( 20 06 )
. ButZ edn er hel d that “ at th e ve ry l eas t th e Ac ti mpl i e s ” th a tth e d i s t r i c tc o u r tmu s te n t e r t heN o. 09

- 2476 9 f i nd i ng s i nt o the r e c o r d notl at e rt han the t i m e th e court rul es on a defendant’s m oti on t o dism i ss. Id. The other Speedy Tri alA ct pr ovis ion rel evanther e, whi chthe di st r i ctc o ur t i nvoke d t o j us ti fy the c o nt i nuance O’ Connor s peci fi cal l y c hal l enged i n herm oti on t o dism i ss , p er m i ts the e xcl usi on o f“[ a] ny per i od ofdel ay re sul ti ng fro m the absen c e or unavai l abi l i ty of

. . . an ess enti alwitness. ” 1 8 U.S
. C. § 3 161( h)( 3) ( A )
. W hen th e unavai l abl e witness w i l l te sti fy forthe gov er nm ent, th e g o ve r nm en t be ar s th e bur deno fj us ti fy i ngthe e xc l usio n of tim e. Id. § 3162(a)(2)
. O’Connor’ s 7 0- day spee dy-t ria l cl ockst ar ted o n A ugust 2 2, 20 05, the day the l asto f h erco defe nd ants w as ar ra i gned. Tri albeg an o n J anuary5, 20 09, a del ay of 1, 229 days. A l th ou gh the co urt excl ud ed al l 1, 229 days, the gov ernm ent c oncedes

— and w e a gr ee

— th atthe dist ri ct c ourter re d by e xcl ud i ng 42 d ay s fro m M ay 19, 20 08 , to Ju ly 1, 2 00 8. Thi s del aywas a tt r ibut ab l e to the cour t ’ s s c he du l i ngp r o b l e ms, a nd the Ac te xp l i c i t l y p r ohibi ts the c ourtfro m exclud in g tim e b as ed o n “ge nera l co ngest i on o fthe c ou rt’ s ca l endar. ” Id. § 3 16 1(h )(7) (C ). (W e w ill ha ve m o re to sa y a b ou t t h is erro r l ate r. ) O’Connor ’ s a rgum ent there f or e i m pli cate s th e 28 d ays rem aining on the sp eed y-tri al cl ock. Before a d d r e s s i n gth e me r i t s , h o we v e r, we c o n f r o n ta t hr es hol d proceduralq u esti on

— w hetherthe continuances O’Connor chal l enges on appeal w er e proper ly prese rv ed f o r r e v i e w.10 N o. 09

- 2476 1. Wai ver

or Fo r f ei ture? T h e Sp ee d y T ria l A c t p ro vid es th at if a d efe n d a n t is not bro ught t o tr ialwithi n the 70- day l i m i t, “the i nfo rm ati o n o r i ndi ct m en t sh al l b e di smi ss ed o n mot i o n o fthe defe nd ant, ” but the “ [ f ] ai l ure ofthe defe nd an t to m ove for d ism iss al [of th e ind ict m en t] p rior to tr ial

. . . s h all const i tute a w ai ver of the ri ght to d ism i ssa l

. ” Id. § 31 62 ( a) ( 2)
. Al th o ug h the pl ain- er r o r s tan d ar d g en er ally gov er n s a p p ella te rev iew of iss u es n otrais ed in th e d ist ric t c ou rt, seeF ED . R. C RIM . P. 52 (b ), t h e A c t is cl ea r tha t “a de fen dan t’ s f ai l ur e to m ove to di smi ss the i nd i ctm ent c onst i tu tes a w ai ver

— not a f orfei tu re

— of hi s r i ghts und erthe A ct, ” U ni t e d S t a tes v . M organ , 38 4 F.3 d 43 9, 44 3 (7 th C ir. 20 04 ); s eeal s o Unit e d S t at e s v. Broadnax, 53 6 F
. 3d 695, 69 9 ( 7th Ci r. 20 08) ( “To e l i m i nate any doubt, we now squ ar el y ho l d that § 31 62( a) ( 2) r equi re s a de fe nd a ntt o mo v e t o di s mi s s o n s pe e dy tr ial gr ou n d s b efo re a tr ial b eg in s o r b efo re a p lea is en tered

. ”). H er e, the w ai verquesti on i s co m plic ate d by the f act that al though O’Connor m ove d t o dism i ss pri or to tr i al, as r equi re d by the A ct, her m oti on chal l enged o nl y o ne e xc l us iono ft i m e: the c o ur t’ s o r derc o nt i nui ng the c ase fro m S ep tem ber4, 20 08, to J anuary5, 2009
. O’Connor ’ s m oti on pre ser ved thi s co ntin uance f or appell ate r ev i ew , but she c hal l enges se ver alo ther s f or th e firs t t im e o n ap p ea l. W e h av e n otp re vio u sly addr es se d w he th era mot i o n t o di smi ss c ha l l en g i ngo ne Sp ee dy Tri alA ct e xcl usi on pre ser ves othe r al l ege d vi ol ati o ns no t spe ci fi ca l ly rai se d i n the mot i o n. Nor, t o o urN o. 09

- 2476 11

The Second C ir cuithas suggest ed, w ithout analysi s, that 3 exclu sion s no t spe cifically ch allen g e d i n a m otio n to d ism iss a re w a iv ed

. SeeUn i t ed Sta t es v. Obero i, 547 F. 3d 43 6 , 4 5 8 ( 2d C ir . 20 0 8 ), vac ated & reman ded on other grou n ds, 130 S. Ct. 1878 (2 0 1 0 ). kn ow led ge , ha s a n y ot h er circ u it d i r ec tly ad d re ss ed th is que st i o n. 3 The s ta tu to r y s ch eme e st ab li sh i ngs an ct i o ns f o r e xc ee d in g t h e 7 0-d ay lim it s u g g e st s t h at th e a n sw er to th is q u es tio n is “n o.” Su b se c tio n 31 62 (a)( 2) p ro vid es : I fa d e fe n d a n t i s n o tb r o u g h tt o t r i a l w i th i n th e t i me l i m i t r equi re d by s ecti on 3 161( c) as exte nd ed by se c ti on 3 161( h), the i nfo rm ati on o r i nd i ctm ent s ha ll be dis mi s s e d o n mot i o n o fthe de fe nd a nt
. T he de

fe nd a nts ha l l h a v e the bur de n o fp r o o fo fs up port i ng such m oti on but th e Gove rnm ent s hal l have th e b u rd en of go in g for w ar d w ith th e e vid en c e in connect i on with any excl usi on o ftim e under subparag ra ph 3161( h)( 3)
. . . . Fa i l ure ofthe defe nd an t t o m ove f ordi sm i ssal p rior to t ri alo r entr y o fa ple a ofgui l ty orn olo c ontend er e s hal l co nsti tute a waiv er o fthe r i g htt o di smi ss alunde r thi s se ct i o n. 18 U. S
. C. § 3 16 2( a) ( 2)
. O’ Conno r s ei ze s o n the l as t se nte nc e o fthi s su bs ec ti o n a nd a r g ue s th ata lla de fen dan t m us t d o to prese rve ap p ell ate r e v ie w of anyexcl usi on of t im e u n d e r th e A c t is file a m ot ion to d ism iss . Th is ar gum ent r eads the l asts en te nce o fthe sancti ons provi si o n i n i so l at i o n.12 N o. 09

- 2476 The l astse ntence sta tes thatthe d efendant’ s f ai l ure to m ov e to dis m i ss pri orto tr i al“s hal l co nsti tute a waiv er ofthe ri ght t o dism iss al” und erthe A ct. But § 3 162( a) ( 2) als o p ro vid es th at “ [t]h e d efe n d an t s h all ha ve the burden ofpro ofo fsup p or ting” the m oti on t o dism i ss un less the ch all en ged exc lusion is one un d er § 3161(h)(3), w hi ch perm i ts the c ourtto co nti nue a case base d on the unava i l abi l i ty ofthe defe nd ant o r an esse n ti alwitne ss . On a m otio n t o di smi ss c ha l l en g i nga n e xc l usi on o fti m e un d er § 3161 ( h)( 3) , the gov er nm ent has “the burden ofgoin g for w ar d w i th the ev i dence. ” Id. § 3161 (a)( 2). A side from this sole ex cep tion, how ever, the Act al l oca tes the burden ofpro vi n g vio lati ons to th e d efe n d a n t. A s s u c h, th e Su p re m e C ou rth as h eld th atthe S pee dy Tr i alAct “ assig ns the r o l e o fs po tt i ng vi ol ati ons ofthe A ct t o d efend ants

— f o r the o bv i o us reason t h a t they hav e the greatest inc en tive to perform thi s t ask

. ” Z edn er, 54 7 U.S
. at50 2- 03. I f, a s th e C o ur t he l d i n Z edn er, the d efend an t bears th e b u rd en of “s p ot tin g” S p ee d y T ria l A c t v iola tio n s, it f ol l ows that any s peci fic viol ati on notr ai sed i n a m oti on to dism i ss i s wai ved. I ffi l i ng a m oti on t o dism i ss w er e e nough to pre ser ve all viol ati ons ofthe A ct

— w hetheri denti fi ed i n the m oti on o r not

— th en the di stri ct co ur t o r the g o ve r nm en t, r athe r tha n the defen dan t, woul d e ffec ti ve l y bea r the bur denof“ spo tt i ng vi o l at i o ns , ” co nt r ar y t o the Co ur t’ s i ns tr uct i o n i n Zed ner . Thi s woul d ups et th e s ta tu to r y s ch eme. By pl ac i ngthe bur deno fi den ti fy i ngv i ola ti o ns o n the de fen dan t, the A ct l i nks the r i ght t o dism i ssa l with the duty to dra w the c ourt ’ s att en ti on t o er ro neous excl usi ons ofti m e.N o. 09

- 2476 13 Thu s, the text of§ 3162 ( a) ( 2)

— re ad as a w h ole an d in l i g ht o f th e Cou r t’ s l an g ua g e i n Z edn er

— st ro n gly su gg es ts th at v i ola tio n s n otsp ec ifica lly id en tifie d in th e d efend an t’s m otion to d ism iss are w aived , not forfe i t e d. H av i ngs ai d tha t, we m ayreserve ul ti m at e j udg m en t on the w ai ver - or - f or fei ture questi on f orano therday; O ’ C o n n o r ’ s a r g u me n tf a i l s e i th e r wa y . E v e n i fwe as su m e t h at h e r u n p re se rv ed ch alle n ge s w er e m er ely f o r fei te d, no t wa ived , no ne o fthe c l ai m ed vi o l at i o ns am ounts to pla i n er ro r. W e tak e them up i n chro nol ogi cal ord er.
2. The Conti nua nces T he A ugus t 22, 200 5 a ndSe pte m b e r 2, 20 05 orde rs O’Connor fi rs t chal l enges two co nti nuances g ra nted ear l y o n i n the case, on A u gust 22 and Septem ber2, 20 05. On A ugust 2 2 a m agi str ate j u d ge continued the case to S e p t e mb e r 2 f o r p r e p a r a t i o n o f p r e t r i a l mo t i o n s an d ex c lu d ed th is d ela y f ro m th e s p ee d y-t ria l cloc k. T h is ex c lu sio n w as p ro p er u n d er circ u it p re c ed en t th en in effec t. I n Tibbo el , 75 3 F
. 2d a t 61 0, w e hel d that del ays r es ul tingfr o m the p re par at i o n o fpr et r i almot i o ns f all w i thi n the am bi t o f§ 3161 ( h)( 1) ( D), the provi si on au th o r i zingthe a ut o m ati c ex cl us i o n o f“ del ayr es ul ting fr o m a n y p re tr ial m ot ion .” B u t t h e Su p re m e C ou rth eld o th er wi se i n B loate . T h e p re tr ial-m ot ion p ro vis ion sp ec ifica l l y pe r m i ts the c o ur t to e xc l ude “ del ayr es ul ting fro m an y p re tr ial m ot ion , f r om t he f

i l i ng of t he m o t i on14 N o. 09

- 2476 t hrough t he co nc l us i on of t he he ar i ng on, oroth er prom pt dispos i t i on of

, s uc h moti on . ” 1 8 U
. S
. C
. § 3 1 6 1 ( h ) ( 1 ) ( D) (em p h as is a d d ed ). B loatehe l d tha t d el ay s r es ul ting f ro m the preparat i on ofpre tr i alm oti on s ar e not co ver ed by thi s p ro visi on, wh i ch auto m ati cal l y e xcl ud es del ays f r o m f i l i ng th r o ug h di s pos i t i on o f m ot i ons. 13 0 S
. Ct. at1 35 3. The Co ur t he l d tha t del ay s at tr ibutabl e to the prepar ati on o fpre tr i alm oti ons m aybe e xcl ud ed und er the e nd s- of

-j usti ce pr ovi si on , but continuances g ra nted for th is p u rp os e m u st be s u p p or te d by ca se -sp ec ific fi nd i ngs that the be n efit s o utw ei gh the co sts , as r equi re d b y § 31 61 (h )(7)
. Id. at 13 52 ; see also Z edn er, 547 U
. S. at 506

- 07 (To j us tify an en d s-of-j us tice con tinu an ce, th e c o urt m us t en te r the s ta tu to r i l y r equi red f i ndi ng s o n the record oral ly or i n w riti ng . ). H er e, the m agi str ate j ud ge did notm ake the fin dings B lo a te r equi r es pr i o r t o e nt er i ngthe A ug ust 22 e xc l us i o n; th e e x c l u s i o n o fth e 11 d a y s fr o m A u g u s t2 2 t o S e p t e mber2 w as ther ef or e er ror. A ssum i ng thi s e rr orwas pla i n, however, r eversa l i s unw ar ra nted. A dd i ng 11 days to th e s p ee d y-t ria l cloc k p u ts t h e t o t a l at53 d ay s, st ill w el l sho rto fthe 70- day l i m i t. S i mi l a r l y, o n S e pt e mber 2 th e di s t r i c tc o ur th e l d a sta tus co nfe re nce with counseland continued the case to Oc tober 28. In a foll ow -up m inu te en try, th e cou rt note d that thi s t i m e was e xcl ud ed f or“m oti ons, tr i al p rep arations and plea ne gotiations,” an d cited th e end s-ofj us ti c e p r o v i s i o n . T h e mi n u t e e n t r y b y i t s e l fi s b r i e fa nd do es no t co nt ain the r equi r ed st atut o r y f ind in g s, b ut § 3 161( h)( 7) per m i ts the c ou rt t o m ake an o ra l r eco rd o fN o. 09

- 2476 15 th e r ea so ns f o r the e xclusion, s o we m ayl o o kt o the tr an sc rip t o f th e s ta tu s c on fer en c e. Z edn er, 54 7 U
. S. at 50 6-0 7; N apado w , 59 6 F
. 3d at 405- 06. T he re w e find a suffi cient exp lanationoft h e cou rt’s reason s for gran ting th is con tinu an ce. A t the Sept em ber 2 hear i n g, o ne o fthe defe nse a tto rney s no ted thathe “ re cei ved f our ver y b i g b oxes ofdi sco ver y” an d n eed ed “a l ot m or e tim e th an the [ c] ourthad al l owed f or d iscover y m oti ons[ , ]
. . . m aybe ano ther60 days j ust t o getthr ough di sco ver y t o fi gure o ut wh at m ot i ons [ to fi l e]
. ” An othe r defe nse l aw yernot ed that “[ t] he Bates num ber s [ i n the disc ove rydocum ents] r un h igher than 10 , 00 0. ” The s he erv o l um e o fthe di scov er y r efl ec ts the co mpl e xi t y o fthe c a s e , wh i c h i nv o l v e d mo r e than 30 separ ate fra ud ule nt tr ansact i ons. A t the co ncl usi on o f th e h e a r i n g, b a s e d o n th i s c o l l o q u y wi th c o u n s e l, t he j ud ge gr anted a continuance to October 28 and excl ud ed th i s ti m e to a l l o w f o r “ m o ti o ns , pr epa r at i o n, an d a ny pl eanegot i at i o ns . ” The di sc us si o n a m o ngc o uns ela nd the c ourtr efl ects the j ud ge’ s co ncl usi on that thi s del ay w as ne cess ary to give the d efense l aw y ers tim e to un d ersta nd the gov er nm ent’ s ca se, anal yze the ev id en ce, an d de cide whatmot i o ns mightb e appr o pr i at e an d w hetherthei r cl i ents’ bes t co urse was to p lead gui l ty or go to tr i al

. I t i s pre ci sel y forcas es l i ke thi s o ne that the e nd s- of-j usti ce pr ovi si on e xi sts ; i t o ffer s di str i ct j ud ges the fl exibility nee ded to effecti vel y m anage compl ex l i ti g at i o n. See Z edn er, 5 47U. S
. a t 49 7. To g ether, th e tra n s cript an d the m inu te ord er sup p ort this end s-ofj us ti ce e xc l us i o n.16 N o. 09

- 2476 The Janu ary 2 7, 20 06 andM ay 12, 20 06 orders O ’Con nor nex t ch all en ges an ord er th e d istri c t c ou rt enter ed on J anuary27, 20 06, co nti nuing the t ri aldate f ro m M ay 15, 20 06, to J uly17, 2006, ci ti ng “t ri alpre parati on” as the r eas on a nd i nvoking the ends- of

-j usti ce provi si on. Thi s co nti nuance m ust be r ead i n l i ght o f a n o th e r g r a n t e d e a r l i e r i n th e c a s e a n d o n e th a tc a me l ate r. A t the co urt’ s Octob er28 , 20 05 sta tus co nfe re nce, the defense at torneys tol d the co urt they w oul d need seve ra l m or e m onths to re vi ew the vol um i nous di sc ov er y inth e c a s e a n d w ou ld n otbe rea d y for tria l un til the s pri ng. W i th the co nsent ofco unsel, the cour t s et a trial d ate of M ay 15, 2006 , an d en tered a n end s-ofj us tic e ex cl us i o n o fa l l t i m e th r o ug h tha t dat e f o r “ co nt i nu i t y o fc o unsel , mo t i o ns a nd t r i a l p r e pa r a t i o ns . ” On J anuary27, 20 06, the cour t r ese t the M ay 15 tr i aldate to J uly17, ci ti ng tr i al

- prepar ati on nee ds. Later, o n M ay 12, 20 06, the cour t a d j ou rned the tr i al aga i n, thi s tim e to J anuary22 , 20 07. O’Connorchal l enges thi s o rderas well

. Fi ve ofth e defe nse a tto rney s had not ified th e cou rt that th e y w ou ld be u na vailable to try th e ca se o n J ul y 17, so th e co ur t co nv en ed a statu s co nfer en ce o n May 12 t o t ak e up th ei r r eque st f o r a n a dj o ur nm ent. A t thi s con fer ence counseladvi sed the cour t that the e ar l i esttheywould al l be avail abl e fortr i alwas J an ua r y 2 00 7. The c o ur t ex pr es se d c onc ern abo utthe l en g tho fthe de l ayb ut a cqui es ce d a nd r es ch edu l ed th e trialf or J an ua ry 22, 2007
. Th e co u r t e n tered an en d s-ofj usti ce excl usi on thro ugh that date, aga i n ci ti ng “t ri al pr epa r at i o n” a nd “ con tinui tyo fc o uns el ” as the r ea so ns f orthe continuance.N o. 09

- 2476 17 T aking th is contex t int o a ccou nt, w e thin k the cou rt m ade an a dequ ate reco rd ofthe re aso ns fo r the J anuary27 an d M ay 12 c o nt inu an ces as req uired by § 3161(h )( 7)(A ). The S pee dy Tr i alActs i m pl y r equi res th e co ur t “t o put on the r eco rd i ts re aso ns f orfi nd i ng the co nti nuance w ar ra n ted [ ; ]
. . . i t doe s no t r equi re thatthe cour t r eci te the s tatutor y f actors o r m ake fi nd i ngs a s t o each o fthem on the r eco rd. ” U n i t e d S t a t e s v . A d a ms , 625 F. 3d 371, 38 0 ( 7th C ir. 2 010). W e hav e hel d that “ the S peedy Tri alA ct do es notr e q u i r e th e c o u r t‘ t o c i t e . . . s e c t i o n s [ o ft he A ct] o r to tr ac k th e s tatutor y l anguage i n a l engthyl ega l op in ion ,’ bu t ra th e r t o m ak e fin d in gs ‘su fficie n tly spe ci fi c to j us ti fy a c o nt i nua nc e[ ] a nd c o m po r t wi ththe pu rpos es of th e A c t.’ ” N apado w , 59 6 F
. 3d at4 05 ( quo ting U ni t e d S t at e s v. Je an , 25 F.3d 588, 594 ( 7th C ir. 1994 ) (a lterat i o ns i n N apado w ) )
. I t’ s c lear fr o m the t r an sc r i pt o fthe cour t’ s co nfe re nces w i th co unsel tha t these continuances we r e b a s e d o n the c o mpl e xi t y o fthe c a s e , the ma g ni t ud e o fthe di sc o very, a nd the a tt o r ne y s’ s ch edu l es . Co ns i de r e d t o g e ther , th e do c k e te nt r i e s a nd the t r a ns c r i pt adequately re fl ect the c ourt ’ s r eas ons f oral l owing these tw o ends-o f

-j usti ce c onti nuances.

T he M arc h 2 4, 20 08 an d M ay 1, 20 08 orde rs Betwee n 2 00 6 an d 2 00 8, many o fO’C onno r ’ s co defen dants pl eaded gui l ty, r esu lti ng i n additi onaldel ays that O’Connor concedes w er e pr oper l y e xcl ud ed und er the Act. The l asto fherco defe nd ants p l eaded gui l ty on M ar ch 8, 20 08, and O’Connor ’ s t ri alwas scheduled to begi n onMar c h 2 4 , 2 0 0 8
. Ontha tda t e a di s pu t e a r o se18 N o. 09

- 2476

o ve r the a uthe nt i ca ti o n o fmo rtgage r ec o r ds th e g o ve r nm en t p lann ed to su bm it as ex hibits. T w o w eeks e a rli er, the g o v e r nme ntfi l e d a mo t i o n t o a dmitthe r e c o r ds und erRule 90 2( 11) o fthe Feder alRule s o fEvi dence a nd t e nd e r e d the r e qu i r e d d e c l a r a t i o ns fr o m t he r ec o r ds cu stod ians att e s t in g to their auth en ticity. J us t before j ury sel ecti on was se t t o begin, O ’ Connor’ s co unsel o bj ecte d, ra i si ng a chal l enge to the s uffi ci ency ofthe decl ar ati o ns ( th o ug h n ot th e au th en ti ci tyo fthe r ec o r ds)

. The parti es j oi ntl y r equeste d a co nti nuance to M ay 19, 20 08, to res olv e t h e d isp u te so th at th e m or tg ag e re c or d s c ou ld be a dm i tte d w i th ou t cal l i ng r eco rds c ustodi ans fro m 22 l en di ngi ns ti tu ti o ns l o ca te d a l l o ve r the c o unt r y . The cour t g ra n te d t h i s r equest, co nti nued the case to M ay 19, and e nter ed anothe r ends-o f

-j usti ce excl usi on f or “t ri al p rep aration.” W e f ind no error ( m uc h less p lai n error) i n thi s o r der

. The o n- th e- r ec o r d di sc us si on am o ng counseland the cour t, to gether w i th the co urt’ s dock et en tr y, a r e su ffi ci en t to s at i sfy the r equi r ement s o fthe sta tute. O n M a y 1 , 2 008, the j ud ge not ified th e pa rties ofa confl i ct in hersche du l e that requ i re d the co urt to tr an sfe r th e ca se to an ot h er j u d ge or re se t t h e M ay 19 tria l. O’Connor’ s co unsel c h os e the l att ero pti on a nd ag re ed th atthe d elay c o ul d b e ex cl ude d unde r the Act
. The j ud ge propos ed J uly1, 20 08 , a s th e new tr i al d ate
. O’Connor’ s counsel i nstea d s ugges ted a da te in S ept embe r b as ed on o th erc o m m i tment s dur i ngthe su m m er . The j udg e relu ctan tly ac qu iesced a nd r es ch edu l ed tr i alf or Septe m be r 2 2, 2 00 8, e nt er i ng anothe r ends-o f

-j usti ce e xcl usi on ci ti ng the need f orN o. 09

- 2476 19 “co nti nuity o fco unsel

. ” O’ Connor’ s a tto rneywaive d obj ecti on t o thi s del ay. O’Connor now ar gues that th e ex c lusi on o fti m e fro m M ay 19 t o Se ptem ber22 was i m properbec ause the Act do es no t per m i t th e co ur t to e xc l ude de l ayr es ul ting fro m “g en er al c on ge st ion o f th e c ou rt ’s c ale n d ar .” § 3 1 61 (h )(7) (C ). Th e g ov er n m en t c ou n te rs th at on ly 42 days o fthi s del ay

— f r o m Ma y 1 9 t o J uly 1

— w ere i m pr o per l y e xc l ude d b as ed on the c o ur t’ s ca l en darc o nges ti on. The court had propose d to sta rttr i alo n J uly1 but co unsel was unavai l abl e. A ccor dingly, the del ay f ro m J uly1 to Se ptem ber22 was so l ely a tt ributabl e t o calen d ar con fl icts of co un sel , no t th e co ur t. I nde ed, the j ud ge speci fi cal l y no te d the nee d fo r continuity o f counselw h en she setthe Se ptem ber22 date. W e a gr ee wi th th e g o v e r n me n tth a to n l y 4 2 d a y s w e r e i mp ro perl y e xcl ud ed fro m the speedy- tr i alcl ock

. The r est of t h e d ela y w as p ro p er ly e x c lu d ed an d ad eq u at ely supp or ted bythe cour t’ s co ncl usi on th at t he addit i onal tim e w as n ec es sa ry to m ain ta inco n tin u ity of co u n se l. The Sep tem ber4, 20 08 order W e co m e a t last to the o nl y c onti nuance O’Connor prese rv ed f orpl enary re vi ew byspeci fi cal l y c i ti ng i t a s th e ba si s f o r he r m o ti o n to di smi ss . At a pr etrial he ar i ng o n S ept embe r 4 , 2 00 8, the g o ve r nm en t i nf o r m ed th e cour t that Dana Po w ell, one ofi ts w i tness es, would be unabl e t o tes ti fy a t the S eptem ber22 tr i al

. Powel l had re centl y del i ver ed a b aby w ho was ve ryi l l and needed to be nur sed as m any as 13 t i m es a day. Powel l was20 N o. 09

- 2476 und erdocto r’ s o rder s to re m ai n at hom e with the baby an d n otlea ve th e h ou se ex c ep t t o go to th e h o s p ita l. The pr o se cut o r i nf o r m ed th e co ur t th atPo wel l was o ne ofthe str aw buye rs and w as an es senti alwitnes s f or th e g ov er n m en t, bu t h er m ed ica l em er ge n c y ob vio u sly pr ev en te d he r fr o m t es ti fy i nga t t r i al

. The c o ur t an d c o u n s el t h en d isc u ss ed w h en P ow ell m igh t b e a va ilab le to t es ti fy; the c o ur t pr o po se d put tingthe c as e o n the “b ac k up” c al en dars o tha t i t could be tr i ed be f o r e th e en d of th e ye a r . Bot h th e pros ecu tor and O’C onn or’s cou ns el obj ecte d to p lacing th e case on t h e cou rt’s “b ac k up” c al en darb ec au se o fthe di ffi cul tyi n a ss embl i ng w i tnesses on s hor t no ti ce a nd the uncert ai nty o f Pow ell ’ s a vai l abi l i ty. The j ud ge agr eed and cont i nued th e tr i alt o J an ua r y 5 , 2 00 9, b uti ns te ad o fdo cket i ng th e e x c lu sio n u n d er § 31 61 (h )(3) , th e u n av aila b le e ss en tia lw i tne s s p r o v i s i o n, the c o ur te nt e r e d a mi nu t e o r der ag ain ex c lu d in g th is tim e u n d er th e e n d s-o f-j u st ice p ro visio n “fo r tr ial p re p ar at ion .” L ess than a week be f or e t ri al, O’Connorm ove d to d i s mi s s , a r g u i n gtha t th e S e p t e mb e r 4 e x c l u s i o n o ft i me vi o l at ed th e S pee dy Tr i alAct
. In respo ns e th e g o ve r nm en t su bmi tt ed a su ppl ement ala ffi dav i t o ffer i ng fu rt h er ev id en c e th at P ow ell w as an es se n tia l an d u n av ailable w itness
. On J an ua ry 5, 2009, before startin g j ury se l ec ti o n, the c o ur t he ar d a r g um en t an d r ul ed o n the m oti on t o dism i ss. The j ud ge speci fi cal l y no ted that w hen the cont in u ance w as gr anted, Powel l “had re cently had a baby” and that “the baby’ s hea l th di d not allo w h er to lea ve .” T h e jud ge co n c lu d ed th at P ow ell w as a “ ver y i m port ant” w itness; thi s co ncl usi onN o. 09

- 2476 21

was b as ed o n the g o ve r nm en t’s r epr es en ta ti o ns a t th e Se ptem ber 4 pretr i al confer ence as w el l as the s u p p lem entalaffi davi t offered i n re sponse to the m oti on t o d ism iss. Th e j ud ge also noted that at t h e Sept em ber 4 hear i ng, the g o v e r nme nt r e pr e s e nt e d a nd we t a l k e d a b out at tha th e a r i ngwh y thi s wi tne s s wa s v e r y i mpo r t a nt, an d the g o ve r nm en t ex pl aine d the i m po r ta nc e an d g av e a g o o d e xpl an at i o n, whi ch i s su ppo r te d b y the re co r d, a s t o wh y thi s wi tne s s wa s u na v a i l a b l e , that sh e h ad rec en tly h ad a b ab y, th e b ab y ’ s h e a lth d id no t al l o w hert o l ea ve ; a nd, the r efo r e, tha t was why I gra n te d th e c on tin u an c e. A c c or d in gly , th e j u d ge c lar ified th at “it w as p re tt y clea r . . . f r o m the [ Sep tem be r 4 ] he ar i ngtha t th e r ea so n f o r c o nti nuing the t ri alwas that a w itn es s was bo th es senti al an d u n av aila b le.” T h e c ou rtth en en te re d a sp ec i f ic fin d in g t h at P ow ell “w as bo th [an ] es se n tia l an d u n av ailab le” w itn es s a n d for t h is rea so n th e d ela y w as “p ro p er ly excl ud abl e” und erthe unavai l abl e- w i tn ess pro vi si on o f the Act. On that basi s the co urt denie d the m oti on t o dism i ss. O’Connor now ar gu es t h at the c ourtco uld notente r an ends- of-j u sti ce c onti nuance on Se ptem ber4 and l ate r change cour se, excl ud i ng the ti m e u n der the unavai l abl ew i tness pro vi si on w h en denyi ng the m oti on t o dism i ss o n J an ua r y 5
. S he mai nt ains that th e J an ua r y 5 r ul i ng w as an i m properr etr oac ti ve continuance, r el yi ng o n U nite d State s v. Ja nik, 723 F.2d 537, 544-45 (7th C ir. 1983), whi chs ug g es te d i n di ct a th ata j udg e ca nno t, i n r ul i ng22 N o. 09

- 2476

on a Sp ee d y T ria l A c t m ot i o n t o d ism iss , ret ro ac tiv ely j usti fy a co nti nuance bas ed on r eas ons not cons id er ed atthe t i m e th e co nt i nua nc e w as g r an te d. Thi s ar g um en t m iscons tru e s the su bsta nc e of th e Sep tem ber 4 h e a r i n g . Al th o u g h th e mi n u t e e n t r y s t a t e s th a t th e co ntinu ance was g ra nted “i n the i nter esto fj usti ce fortr i al pr epa r at i o n, ” th e o n- th e- r ec o r d c o l l o quy b etwee n the co ur t an d c ou ns el make s i t unmi st ak ab l y c l ea r tha t th e continuance w as gr anted be cause Pow el l was both an ess en ti alwitnes s a nd unavai l abl e be cause ofher new bor n’s se rious i l l ness. Despi te the m i nute ent ry, w hich ap p ears to be a tech nical error, fr o m the very beginn ing this con tinu an ce w as bas e d on § 3161(h)(3), the u na v a i l a b l e e s s e nt i a l

- wi tne s s p r o vi s i o n, a nd not § 31 61 ( h) ( 7) , the e nds

- o f

-j us ti ce pr o vi si o n. The S up r e me Co ur th a s h e l d tha tthe fi nd i ng s r e qui re d f oran e nd s- of

-j ustice co nti nuance und er§ 3161 ( h)( 7) n ee d n otbe en te re d int o t h e re c or d co n te m p or an eo u sly wi ththe c o nt i nua nc e, b utmust“ be mad e, i fo nl y i n the j u d ge ’ s m i nd , befor e g ra nti ng the co nti nuance, ” a nd m ay be record ed l ater p rovide d they are “pu t on th e record by th e tim e a district cou rt rule s o n a defen d an t’s m oti on t o dism i ss und er§ 3162 ( a) ( 2)
. ” Z edn er, 5 47 U
. S. at 506 -07 ; see also N apado w , 59 6 F
. 3d at 405 ( “[ T]he dist ri ct c ou rtn ee d n otex p lain its find in gs co n te m p or an e o u sly w ith its d ec is ion to ex c lu d e t im e.” ); U ni t e d S t at e s v. Brya nt, 523 F.3d 349 , 3 6 1 (D
. C
. Cir. 2008) (“ Z edn er per m i ts tri alj udg es t o putthe i r fi ndi ng s o n r ec o r d a t th e ti m e they ru l e o n a [ Speedy Tri alA ct] m oti on t o dism i ss, rath er than at the tim e the y grant the con tinu an ce . . . . ”); U ni t e d S t at e s v. La rs on , 41 7 F
. 3d 741, 74 6 ( 7th Ci r. 20 05)N o. 09

- 2476 23

The court’ s findings that Dan a Pow el l w as both ess enti al 4 and unav ail able were not c learl y erroneous. The rec ord su p p o rt s th e u n a v a ila b ili ty fin d in g , seeU n i te d S ta te s v . K ol l er, 95 6 F
. 2d 1 40 8, 14 13 ( 7th Ci r. 1992) , an d the c our t ’ s fi ndi ng th at P ow ell w as an essentia l w itness w as also corr ect. O ’ C on no r no w a rg u es tha t Po w ell’ s testim on y w as m erely cum ulati ve, b ut a witnes s m ay st il l be consi dered ess enti al eve n i fhe r testi m ony i s no ts t ri c t l y ne c es s ar y t o o bt ai n a co n v ic tio n . C

f
. U ni t ed Sta t es v. Tede sc o , 726 F. 2d 1216, 1222 (7 th C ir . 19 8 4 ) (m a k in g th is p o in t w ith an ac co m p lic e). ( “Though the dist ri ct c ou rti s no t r equi re d to m ake S pee dy Tr i alActfi ndi ng s co nt empor an eo us l y wi tha con tinu an ce ord er, the be tter p ractice is f or the cou rt to make the r equi r ed fi ndi ng s at least pr i o r t o a de fen dant ’ s mo t i o n t o di s mi s s the i nd i c t men tf o r a v i o l ati on of the A ct.” ( intern al ci tation om itted ))
. I n c o nt r as t to e nds

- o f

-j us ti ce c o nt i nua nc es , ho wev er, peri ods o fdel ay excl ud abl e und er § 3 161( h)( 1)

- ( 6) m ay be autom atical lyexc lud ed i f th e sp ecifi ed cond iti ons are p re se n t; n o e n d s- o f-j u st ice ba lan c in g b y t h e c ou rtis necess ar y b ecause the bal ance ha s a l re ad y b een s tr uck b y C o n g r e s s . U nited Sta tes v. Tink lenberg, 131 S. Ct. 20 07, 20 13 -15 (20 11 ); B loate, 13 0 S . C t. at 13 51 -52 . H er e, t h er e is no r o o m f o r d oubttha t th e S ept embe r 4 a dj o ur nm en t w as necess i tat ed by Pow ell’ s unavai l abi l i ty to tes ti fy a t the S eptem ber22 tr i albas ed o n herbaby ’ s i l l ness. Bec ause she was an ess enti alwitnes s, thi s t i m e was autom ati cal l y e xcl ud abl e fro m the sp ee dy-t ri alcl ock un d er § 31 6 1 (h)(3) ; no en d s-of-j us tice find ings w ere ne ce ss ar y . Tha t th e j udg e cl ar i fi ed th e ba si s for th e

4 S ept embe r 4 con tinua nc e when sh e l at err ul ed o n the24 N o. 09

- 2476

m otion to d ism iss does n ot ch an ge m atters. Th e cou rt re l i ed on the sa m e r ati onal e a t bo th hear i ngs, w h ich d i s t i n g u i s h e s t hi s c a s e fr o m Janik

. Even i fwe w er e t o tr ea t t h is a s a n en d s-o f-j u st ice co n t i n u an c e (w h ich it w a s n o t ) , n o S pe e dy T r i a l Ac tv i o l a t i o n o c c ur r e d. Under Z edn er, a s l o nga s the c o ur t’ s r ea so ns f o r g r an tingthe co nt i nua nc e ar e pl ac ed on the r ec o r d b y the t i m e th e cour t r ule s o n a m oti on t o dism i ss, the proce du ra lr equ i r e men t s o fthe Ac ta r e s a t i s fi e d. Of co ur se , when g r an ting an en ds- o f

-j us ti ce cont i nuance, the “bes t pr ac tic e” is f orthe cour t “ to pu t i ts fi nd i ngs o n the re cor d at o r nearthe ti m e when i t g ra nts the c onti nuance. ” Z edn er, 547 U
. S . a t 5 0 7 n.7. Th e cou rt’s sta tem en t of rea sons need not be l engthyand need not “tr ack the s tatutor y l anguage , ” but i t s houl d be e nough to “ en su r e[ ] the distri ctc o ur t co ns i der s th e r el ev an t fact o r s a nd prov ides this cou rt w ith an ad eq ua te record to re vi ew . ” N apado w , 5 9 6 F
. 3 d a t 4 0 5 ( qu o t a t i o n m ar ks om i tte d). H er e, how eve r, the continuance w as base d on an unavai l abl e e sse nti alwitnes s, wh i ch r equ ire s no endsof

-j usti ce r eas onin g. O’Connor’ s m oti on t o dism i ss wa s p r o pe r l y de ni e d.

B. S ixth A m en d m en t S p eed y-Trial C laim The S i xth A m en d m en t g ua r an te es a n a cc us ed “the right to a sp eed y and pu bli c trial

. ” U
. S. C O NST . am en d . VI. A part f ro m her Speedy Tri al A ct ar gum ent, O ’C onn or conte nd s that the 1, 229- day pre tr i al del ay vi ol ate d her Si xth A m endm ent r i ght t o a s peedy tr i al

. Because O’Co nn o r di d n o tma k e thi s a r g ume ntb e l o w, o urr e vi ewN o. 09

- 2476 25 is for p lain err or . U n i t e d S ta tes v. G earh a rt, 57 6 F
. 3d 459, 462-63 (7th Cir. 2009). Our r ej ectio n o fO’ Co nno r ’ s ar g um en t unde r the S pe e dy T r i a l Ac tdo e s n o tr e s o l v e h e r c o ns t i t uti onal clai m ; whi l e r el at ed, the c o ns ti tu ti o na l a nd s ta tu to ry rig h ts a re d ist in c t. Se ei d. a t 46 2 ( “T he c o ns ti tu ti o na l r i g ht to a s pee dy tr i ali s bo thna r r o w era nd b r o ade r tha n the co r r es po ndi ngs ta tu to r y r i g ht

. ”)
. Thu s, “ a vi o l at i o n o fo ne [rig h t] m ay be f o u n d w ith ou t a vio lat ion of th e o th er .” U nite d State s v. White, 44 3 F
. 3d 58 2, 58 8 ( 7th Ci r . 2006). A Si xth A m en dm en t spe edy

- tr i alc l ai m tur ns o n the fo l l o wi ngg en er alf ac to r s: “ [ W ] he th er[ th e] de l ayb efore tr i alwas unc o m m o nl y l ong , whethe r the g o ve r nm en t orthe cri m i nal defendan t is m or e t o bl am e forthat del ay, wh ether, i n due cours e, th e defendant ass er ted hi s r i g ht to a spe edy tr i al, an d whethe r he su ffer ed prej udice as the del ay’ s r esul t. ” D o gg ett v. U nited Sta tes , 50 5 U
. S. 647, 651 (1992 ). De l a y s o fm o r e tha n o ne y e a r a r e c o ns i de r e d p r e s umptiv ely p rej u d icia l, W

hite, 4 43 F
. 3d at5 89

- 90 , a nd thi s o ne obviou sly qu ali fi es. H ow ever, O’C onn or bears p rim ary re sp on sib ility for m an y of t h e p re tr i al d ela ys an d d id not sufferactual prej ud i ce. S he change d counseltwice du ring the co urse o fthe pretr i al procee dings , m ove d for se ve ra l co n tin u an c es , con se n te d to ot h er s , an d d id not ass er t her speedy- tr i al ri ghts unti l the en d o f D e c e mb e r 2 0 0 8 , wh e n s h e mo v e d t o d i s mi s s o n S pe e dy Tr i alActg r o unds s ev er aly ea r s afte r he r i nd i ct m en t an d a week bef or e hertr i al

. M or eov er, O’Connordi d not see k to seve r her case fro m the othe r defe nd ants to m i t i g a t e d e l a y s r e s u l t i n gfr o m th e j o i n tp r o s e c u-26 N o. 09

- 2476 ti on. Final l y, al though O ’ Connor dr aw s o ur a tte nti on to cer tai n go ver nm ent witnesse s who had diffi c u lty r em em ber i ng so m e f acts d uri ng cr oss - exam i nati on, thes e m em or y l apses w er e no t pr ej ud i ci al

. I fa n yt h i ng, they w er e hel pfulto O’C on n or ; she coul d have hi ghl i ghted th e g aps i n the i r mem o r ies as a r ea so n t o di sc o unt thei r tes ti m ony. The pre tr i aldel ay i n thi s ca se, tho ugh l engthy, di d not v i ol ate the Si xth A m endm ent.

C. J uryI ns t ruc t i o ns O’Conno r n ex t chal l enges the cour t’ s use o fa j oi ntve ntur e i ns tr ucti o n. S he c l ai m s th atthe i ns tr uct i o n c o nst r uct i ve l y a m en ded th e i ndi ct m en t byi m pl i ci tly i ncl ud i ng an uncharge d conspi ra cy count. S he al so m aintains tha t th e i ns tr uct i o n h ad th e effec t o fe as i ng the g ove rnm ent’ s bur den ofpro of

. W e nee d n ot address th e m er i ts o f ei th er ar g um en t. O’ Conno r waived a ny ch al l en g e to the j o i nt
- ve ntur e i ns tr uct i o n. A defendant w ho s peci fi cal l y a pp ro ves an i nstr uct ion i n the dist ri ct c ourtwaive s the r i ght t o chal l enge i t o n ap p ea l. U nite d S ta te s v. G ri ff in , 49 3 F
. 3d 856, 86 3- 64 ( 7th Cir
. 20 07) ( “Counsel ’ s a ffi rm ati ve stat em ent that he had no o bj ecti on t o the pr opose d i nstr ucti on co nstitu tes w ai vero fthe abi l i ty to ra i se thi s cl ai m o n appeal

. ”)
. H er e, O’Connor’s counsel st ate d on the re cor d that he had no obj ecti on to the j oi nt- ventur e i nstr ucti on. O ’ Connor att em pts to avo i d thi s wai verbycas ti ng herappel l ate ar gu men t a s a c ha l l e ng e t o the j ur y i ns t r uc t i o ns a s a whol e r athe r tha n a c ha l l en g e to the j o i nt
- ve ntur e i nst r uct i o n a l o ne . Thi s ar g um en t i s no th i ngmo re tha n a rhet or i calsl ei ght of hand

. O’Connor ’ s cl ai m o fi nstr uc-N o. 09

- 2476 27 ti o na l e r r o r c en te r s o n the j o i nt
- ve ntur e i ns tr uct i o n, w hi ch she conte nd s was fl aw ed, gi ven o ut o fco nt ext, an d c o r r upt ed the in str uct i o ns i n the i r e nt i r ety . S he does not ch al l en g e t he ins tr uct i o ns a s a whol e but f o cus es o n the j o i nt
- ve ntur e i ns tr uct i o n in pa r ti cu lara nd i ts effect on the o theri nstr ucti ons. Because O’Connor c on se n te d to th is in st ru c tio n, sh e c an n otch a l l en ge it on ap p ea l.

D . Suff i ci ency o ft he Evi den ce O ’C on n or a l s o m ain ta in s t h at th e e vid en c e w as ins u fficient to sup p ort her w ire- fraud c onv iction. Suffici en cy-ofthe

- e v i de nc e c ha l l e ng e s c a r r y a v e r y s t e e p s t a nd a r d of re vie w ; w e v iew t h e e vid en c e in th e ligh t m os t fa vo ra b le to the g ov ernm ent a nd r eve rs e o nl y i fno ra ti onalj uror w oul d have f ound the d efend ant guil ty beyo nd a re aso n ab le d ou b t. U nite d State s v. R ober ts , 53 4 F
. 3d 560, 56 9 ( 7th Ci r . 2 00 8)
. To c o nv i ctO’ Conno r o fwi r e fr au d un d er18 U
. S. C. § 1 343, the gov er nm ent had t o prove tha ts he : ( 1 ) p a r t i c i pa t e d in a s c he me t o de f r a ud ; (2) h ad th e in te n t t o d ef r a u d ; an d (3) u se d th e w ire s in fu rt h er an c e o f th e fra u d u len t s c h em e. Id. O’Co nn o r fi r s tc l a i ms tha tb e c a us e s he b e l i e v e d tha t Cross would m ake the m or tga ge paym ents and never m ea ntt o c he atthe b an k s o uto fm one y, s he l ac k ed i nt en t to de f r au d. Thi s ar g um en t m i su nde r st an d s th e i nt en t el em ent o fw ire fr aud. To win a convi cti on under § 13 43, th e g o ve r nm en t o nl y ne ede d t o pro ve “a w i l l fula ctb y the de fe nd a ntwi th the s pe c i fi c i nt e ntt o de c e i v e o rc he at, usual l y forthe pu rpos e o fge tting fi nanci alga i n f or28 N o. 09

- 2476

one ’s sel f orcausing fin an c iall oss to ano ther

. ” Id. at57 1 ( e mpha s i s a dde d) ( qu o t a t i o n mar k s o mi t t e d)

. T he g over nm ent di d not nee d to p ro ve that O’Connor i ntended to h ar m th e b an ks or c au se th em to lose m on e y . U nited St at e s v. Le ahy, 464 F.3d 773 , 786-87 (7th C ir. 2006). T he govern m en t ’s eviden ce esta bli sh ed ( or so a j ury re aso nabl y c oul d bel i eve ) thati n exchange f or$2 0, 000 i n si de paym ents f ro m Cross , O’Connor knowingl y process ed sev en fra ud ule nt l oan packag es and fo rwarded th em o n to l enders w i th the i ntent that they w ou ld provi de m or tga ge fund i ng. T h is i s s uffi ci ent t o est abl i s h i nt e ntt o de f r a ud

. O’Connor al so cl ai m s that s he was m er el y a n unw i tting paw n wh o l acke d substanti aleducati on o r traini nga nd was t r i ck ed i nt o pa r ti ci pat i ngi n Cr o ss’s sc he m e. S he po i nt s o uttha t sh e to l d the F BItha t sh e thought Cross ’ s deal s l oo ked cl ean. S he em phasi zes as w el l thatshe did notgrad uate f ro m hi gh sc hooland had l i m i ted tr ai ni ng as a l oan offi cer . S he ci tes U nited Sta tes v. B a iley, 85 9 F
. 2d 1265 , 1 27 3-75 ( 7th Ci r. 19 88) , wh i ch he l d th at pr o o f o f k no wi ng par ti ci pat i o n i n a fr au dul en t s ch eme r e q u i r e s mo r e th a n kn o wl e d g e o f“ s h a d o wy deal i ngs, ” s up er fi ci alpart i ci pati on, o r the e xchange o f m o ne y . Unl i k e i n B a iley, the evidence est abl i shes that O’ Conno r was hea vi l y i nv o l ve d i n the fr au dul en t sche m e. S he kno wi ng l y pr o ce ss ed an d s en t to l en d ers f orapprov alm ult i ple fra ud ule nt m ortga ge- l oan appli cati ons f al sel y r epres enti ng tha t per sons othe r than C ross w er e p u rchas i ng the subj ect proper ti es. S he al so m et w i th so m e ofthe str aw buye rs and f al sel y r epor ted o n seve ra l l oan f orm s that s he had pers onal l y inter vi ew ed th e a p p lica n ts w h en sh e h ad n ot . M os t d am n in g isN o. 09

- 2476 29 O’Connor’ s a cceptance of near l y $ 20, 000 i n ki ckba cks from C ross, a fact sh e ad m itted at trial

. T his q u id p ro quo

— tr adinghe r sh am a ppr o va l s o fmul ti pl e f r au dul en t l oan appli cati ons f ortho usand s ofdol l ar s in und er - thetabl e paym ents

— i s co nv i nc i nge videnc e o ffr au dul en t i ntent. T o b e s u re , Bail ey does sugge st that provin g i ntent to d efr au d m igh t b e m or e d i f ficu lt w h en th e d efe n d an t is an uns o phi st i ca te d l o w-l ev el par ti ci pan t r athe r than, for ex am p le, a h igh ly ed u c at ed co r p or at e e x ec u tiv e. See i d. at1 275. But w e hav e ca uti oned that B a iley“do[ es] not su p p ly a n u n so p h ist ica te d d efe n d an t w ith an au to m at ic defe nse t o a fra ud

. . . ind i ctm ent. ” U ni t e d S t at e s v. Johns on , 927F.2d 99 9, 10 05 (7t h C i r . 199 1). T h is p rin c ip le i s par ti cul ar l y a pp l i cabl e her e. The go ver nm ent o ffer ed ample ev i den ce o fO’ Conno r ’ s g ui l t. Acce ptinghe r e xcul pator y theo ry w oul d r equi re us to re ad th e evi dence i n her f avo r ra ther than i n f avo r of the j ury’ s verdict. The evi dence w as m or e than suffi ci ent t o convi ct.

E . P r e j udi c i a l Su r pl us a g e i n the I ndi c t me nt Fin ally , O’ C on n or ch alle n ge s t h e d ist ric t c ou rt ’s d ec isi o n n o tt o r e d a c tc e r t a i n p o r t i o n s o fth e i n d i c t m en t b efo re se n d in g it t o t h e ju r y roo m . A t t h e c los e o f ev idence, the parti es disa gr eed o verthe f or m o f t h e indi ctm ent the c o ur t wo ul d pr o v i de t o the j ur y . Th e c a pt i o n of th e i ndi ct m en t i den ti fi ed O’ Conno r ’ s co defen dan ts , a nd she a ske d the co urt to re dact the ir n am es as prej ud i ci al su r pl us ag e. The g o ve r nm en t o bj ec te d t o r emov i ngthe codefendants’ nam es because the j ury m i ght s pecula te30 N o. 09

- 2476

a b o u tw h y th e k e y p a r t i c i p a n t s i n th e s c h e me

— w hose i nv o l v e men t ha d b e e n the s ubj e c t o f muc h o f the tr i al te st i m o ny

— we r e no ti nc l ud e d a s de fe nd a nt s i n the c a pti o n. The j udg e den i ed O’ Conno r ’ s r equest an d l etthe unr eda ct ed f o r m o fthe i ndi ct m en t g o t o the j ur y . The j ud ge did, however, i ssue a cauti onar y instr ucti on tel l i ng the j urors not to “specul ate [ about] wh y a ny o ther per so n who se na m es y o u may ha ve heard dur i ngthe tr ial orwh o w as nam ed i n the i nd i ctm ent in thi s ca se as a d efe n d an t is n otcu rre n tly on tria l be for e y ou .” The Feder al Ru l es ofCri m i nal Pro cedure provi de that “[ u]pon the defendant’s m oti on, the co u rt m ay str i ke surpl usage fro m the i nd i ctm ent or in for m ati on. ” F ED . R. C R IM . P. 7( d). The co urt’ s deci si on o n a Rul e 7 ( d) m oti on turns on co nsi derat i ons ofr el evance and prej u d ice. U nited Sta t e s v . P eters , 43 5 F
. 3d 746, 75 3 ( 7th Ci r. 20 06) ( “Sur plusa ge shoul d not be st ri cken u n l ess i t i s cl ear th atthe a l l eg at i o ns a re notr el ev an t to the c ha r g e an d are i nfl am m ato ryand prej ud i ci al

. ” ( quotati on m ar ks om i tte d))

. W e r evi ew the denia l o fa R u le 7 ( d) m oti on to s tr i k e f o r abus e o fdi sc r et i o n. U ni t e d S t a t e s v. Te r r igno , 838 F.2d 371, 373 (9th Cir. 1988). W e fin d no abuse o fdi scr eti on her e. The i denti ty of the c odefendants was r el evantto the c harg e a gai nst O ’ C o n n o r . T h e i r n a me s h a d b e e n r e p e a t e d o ft e n d u r i ng the t r i a l, a nd thi s i nfo r mat i o n wa s i mpo r t a ntt o p r o v i de the j ur y wi th a mo r e c o mpl e t e p i c t ur e o fthe s c he m e. The l i nk be tw een O’Connor and her codefendants was centr al to the c a s e , s o l e a v i ngthe i r n a mes i n the i nd i c tm en t’s cap tion cau sed no p rej ud ice. F inall y, th e cou rt i ssued a cauti onar y in st ru c ti on warni ng the j ury thatN o. 09

- 2476 31 th e ind ictm en t w as no t evide nc e and that O’C onn or’s ass oci ati on with herco defe nd ants w as not suffi c ient by i tse l fto prov e her know i ng par ti ci pati on i n the schem e. SeeU nite d State s v. M arshall, 985 F.2d 901 , 906 (7th C ir. 19 9 3 ) ( c a ut i o na r y i ns t r uc t i o ns c a n mi t i g a t e the r i s k o f p rej ud ice). O’Connor ra i ses two addit i onalRule 7( d) a rgum ents f o r th e fi r s tt i me o n a p p e a l, bo t h u n a v a i l i n g . S h e c l a i ms that a par agr aph i n the i nd i ctm ent r efer ring t o the t ota l l oss cause d by the fra ud ule nt schem e was prej ud i ci al surpl usage . W e di sag re e. The am ount o fthe f ra ud was r el ev an t an d ha d b ee n pl ac ed i n e vi den ce dur i ngthe tr i al

. The ev i den ce o fthe l o ss a m o unt

— about $6 m i l l i on

— approxi m ate d the $6

. 2 m i l l i on l oss al l ege d i n the i nd i ctm ent. O’Connor ’ s fi nal ar gu m ent i s that s om e par ts of th e i ndi ct m en t des cr ibe d f ac ts tha t p erta i ne d o nl y t o the invol vem ent o fo ther s in the schem e but er ro neously and prej ud i ci al l y i m pli ed herpart i c ip atio n. But the w i re f r au d c o unta gai ns t he r i nc o r po r at ed byr efer en ce the entire f r au dul en t sc he m e. Acco r di ng l y, the pa r ts o fthe in d ic t m en t s h e c laim s w er e irr ele va n t w er e a c tu ally i nc l ude d i n the c ha r g e ag ains t he r . The f o r m o fthe i nd ict m en t t h at w en t t o t h e jur y d id n otco n ta in i rr el evantand prej ud i ci alsur plusa ge. A FFI RMED .

9- 1- 11