Opinion ID: 2790079
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Government's First Appeal

Text: Carpenter first argues that the time consumed by the first appeal constitutes unwarranted delay because the government's position on appeal was weak. In general, delay caused by interlocutory review does not cut against the government. United -19- States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302, 312-15 (1986) (Given the important public interests in appellate review . . . it hardly need be said that an interlocutory appeal by the Government ordinarily is a valid reason that justifies delay.) (internal citation omitted). The Loud Hawk court noted, however, that a tangential or frivolous appeal would weigh heavily against the government, so courts should consider the strength of the government's position on the appealed issue, the importance of the issue to the case, and (in some cases) the seriousness of the crime to determine whether an appeal should cut against the government. Id. at 315. These factors all cut strongly against concluding that the time consumed by the first appeal constituted unjustified delay. The government's closing comments that led to the grant of a new trial did not even elicit a contemporaneous objection from defense counsel or rebuff from the court itself. While the district court in its discretion concluded that the comments were sufficiently prejudicial as to require a new trial, that same court, in its February 2014 order rejecting Carpenter's speedy trial motion, described the government's appeal of that grant of a new trial to be legitimate and justifiable. Carpenter, 2014 WL 691659 at . Most notably, the panel hearing the appeal was split, with one judge finding persuasive the government's argument that the district court erred in applying too strict a standard in assessing the impact of closing comments that failed to draw a -20- contemporaneous objection. United States v. Carpenter, 494 F.3d 13, 29 (1st Cir. 2007) (Campbell, J., dissenting). However one defines the category of reasonably strong appeals, it likely includes an appeal that garnered an actual vote by a circuit court judge in favor of the appeal. The appealed order had set aside a jury verdict convicting Carpenter of very serious charges. A successful appeal would have ended (i.e., also shortened) the case. Focusing his argument on the fact that the government chose to appeal at all, Carpenter otherwise raises no objection to the duration of the appeal. We therefore reject his contention that the time consumed by the appeal constituted unjustified delay of any type relevant to our analysis.