Opinion ID: 617629
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hassebrock's Right to a Speedy Trial

Text: Hassebrock argues that his right to a speedy trial, as guaranteed by the Speedy Trial Act and by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, has been violated by the 286-day period between his first appearance and the start of his trial. He concedes that he is raising these arguments for the first time in this appeal, yet he urges us to view his statutory argument as merely forfeited rather than waived. Hassebrock further contends that the Speedy Trial Act waivers that he executed are invalid. We do not agree, and we conclude that Hassebrock waived his statutory right to a speedy trial and that his constitutional right, though not waived, was not violated. Most of the delays stemmed from repeated requests for continuances by Hassebrock's own counsel and almost certainly strengthened the counsel's ability to mount a sound defense for Hassebrock.
Pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act, criminal trials must commence within 70 days of the indictment or the defendant's initial appearance, whichever is later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1). The Act enumerates delays that shall be excluded from the 70-day clock, recognizing that certain delays leading up to trial are justifiable. Id. § 3161(h); see also United States v. O'Connor, 656 F.3d 630, 635-36 (7th Cir. 2011). Hassebrock alleges that 286 non-excludable days elapsed between his initial appearance on July 7, 2009 and the commencement of trial on April 23, 2010. We need not engage in the process of determining which days during this period are excludable, however, because we find that Hassebrock waived his statutory right by failing to move to dismiss the indictment prior to trial. The remedy for a violation of the Act's 70-day limit is dismissal of the indictment, but the defendant must move for dismissal of the indictment prior to trial. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2); see also United States v. Broadnax, 536 F.3d 695, 699 (7th Cir. 2008). In unambiguous terms, the Speedy Trial Act states that the [f]ailure of the defendant to move for dismissal prior to trial ... shall constitute a waiver of the right to dismissal. 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). Hassebrock concedes that he did not raise this objection in a motion to dismiss prior to trial but asks us to view his claim as merely forfeited, which would entitle him to plain error review of his claim. The express terms of the Speedy Trial Act do not permit this interpretation. See id.; O'Connor, 656 F.3d at 636-37; United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459, 462 & n. 2 (7th Cir.2009) (observing that every circuit to consider the issue has held that the failure to move for dismissal under the act constitutes a waiver, not merely a forfeiture). The general rule that we review claims not asserted in the district court for plain error pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) does not apply to claims involving the Speedy Trial Act because the Act sets forth waiver as the sole consequence for failing to assert the claim below. See O'Connor, 656 F.3d at 637. Hassebrock makes three flawed attempts to demonstrate that we may (and should) review his claim for plain error. First, he points out that we stated in United States v. Morgan that we have reviewed a defendant's statutory speedy trial claim for plain error even though it was never presented to the district court. 384 F.3d 439, 442 (7th Cir.2004). But this statement from Morgan served only to summarize the inconsistent approach that we had previously taken before articulating the clear holding that failure to assert a right under this Act constitutes waiver and not forfeiture. Id. at 442-43. In fact, we anticipated the very argument that Hassebrock now advances by announcing in Morgan that we do not view these earlier cases as contrary precedent because they erroneously overlooked § 3162(a)(2). Id. at 443. Hassebrock next argues that we should reevaluate our waiver decisions in Morgan and Gearhart in light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 126 S.Ct. 1976, 164 L.Ed.2d 749 (2006), Bloate v. United States, ___ U.S. ___, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 176 L.Ed.2d 54 (2010), and United States v. Tinklenberg, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 2007, 179 L.Ed.2d 1080 (2011). But Zedner focused primarily on the propriety of prospective waivers under the Speedy Trial Act, see 547 U.S. at 500-03, 126 S.Ct. 1976, and the requirement that an express finding accompany a district court's grant of an ends-of-justice continuance, see id. at 503-09, 126 S.Ct. 1976. Bloate and Tinklenberg addressed only narrow questions concerning which delays are excluded from the Act's 70-day limit. See Tinklenberg, 131 S.Ct. at 2010-16; Bloate, 130 S.Ct. at 1349, 1351-53. Had Hassebrock moved to dismiss his indictment, these cases might have become relevant to the determination of whether his rights under the Act were violated. But not one of these cases makes any assertion that calls into question the well-established conclusion that failure to move to dismiss constitutes waiver under the Act. In fact, our decision in O'Connor, decided after Zedner and Bloate, suggests just the oppositewe found Zedner 's emphasis on the defendant's role of spotting violations of the Act to support an expansion of the application of waiver to a defendant who actually moved to dismiss on one ground but not on others. O'Connor, 656 F.3d at 637-38 (quoting Zedner, 547 U.S. at 502-03, 126 S.Ct. 1976). Finally, Hassebrock argues that the written waivers of his rights under the Speedy Trial Act are invalid. Hassebrock filed motions to continue on July 10, 2009 and on December 17, 2009. The first motion requested a continuance of at least six months because Hassebrock's new counsel had not yet reviewed discovery, needed additional time to prepare the defense, and had another upcoming trial. The second motion requested a continuance of six weeks based on a possible scheduling conflict. Hassebrock now contends that the waivers affixed to those motions are invalid based on the Supreme Court's holding regarding prospective waivers in Zedner. Zedner held that a defendant may not prospectively waive his right to a speedy trial, see 547 U.S. at 500, 126 S.Ct. 1976, but Zedner is distinguishable from this case on several grounds. First, the defendant in Zedner had waived his speedy trial rights for all time and had waived his right to move to dismiss the indictment for failure to hold a speedy trial, id. at 493-94, 126 S.Ct. 1976, while Hassebrock consented only to six-month and six-week waivers and retained his right to move to dismiss the indictment, a right which he did not attempt to exercise until the present appeal. Second, the judge in Zedner had solicited the waiver from the defendant, see id., whereas Hassebrock consented to this waiver to help counsel prepare his defense. Finally, Zedner distinguished between prospective waivers (i.e., waivers made expressly by the defendant prior to trial that disclaim any rights under the Speedy Trial Act) and retrospective waivers (i.e., waivers made unintentionally by the defendant by failing to move to dismiss based on a speedy trial violation prior trial). Id. at 502, 126 S.Ct. 1976 ([T]here is no reason to think that Congress wanted to treat prospective and retrospective waivers similarly.... The sort of retrospective waiver allowed by § 3162(a)(2) does not pose a comparable danger because the prosecution and the court cannot know until the trial actually starts or the guilty plea is actually entered whether the defendant will forgo moving to dismiss.). The defendant in Zedner had actually moved to dismiss his indictment for violating the Act, but the district court denied his motion based on his prospective waivers. In contrast, there is no question that Hassebrock has retrospectively waived his rights. The Zedner Court reaffirmed a defendant's ability to retrospectively waive his rights under the Act. See id. Because we conclude that Hassebrock validly waived his rights retrospectively by failing to move to dismiss, we need not decide whether Hassebrock's express waiver constituted a prospective waiver, whether all express waivers are invalid under Zedner, and whether the attachment of an express waiver to an otherwise valid motion to continue invalidates the motion. [1]
Hassebrock mentions in his opening brief that the Speedy Trial Act is a codification of the defendant's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. See U.S. Const. amend. VI. That is his sole reference to the constitutional right to a speedy trial. Nowhere does Hassebrock allege directly that his Sixth Amendment right was violated. He does not present any arguments in support of this claim or apply the four-factor test from United States v. Gearhart for determining whether a constitutional speedy trial violation occurred. We question whether Hassebrock intended to allege a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. Even assuming that he did assert this violation, we find the argument decidedly underdeveloped and therefore waived. See Trentadue v. Redmon, 619 F.3d 648, 654 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir.1991) (We repeatedly have made clear that perfunctory and undeveloped arguments, and arguments that are unsupported by pertinent authority, are waived (even where those arguments raise constitutional issues).). A defendant's statutory right and constitutional right to a speedy trial are not identical, and thus we cannot simply transfer his arguments in support of a violation of the statute to arguments in support of a violation of the Constitution. See O'Connor, 656 F.3d at 643 ([W]hile related, the constitutional and statutory rights are distinct.); Gearhart, 576 F.3d at 462. We do note that the government, rather than argue that Hassebrock waived his Sixth Amendment claim, applied the Gearhart test in its brief and argued that the test dictates a finding in its favor. We have previously found that a party can waive a waiver argument by failing to raise it. See, e.g., Qiu Ping Li v. Holder, 612 F.3d 603, 604 (7th Cir.2010); United States v. Moore, 563 F.3d 583, 585 (7th Cir.2009). Nevertheless, we have also recognized that the waiver doctrine is designed for our own protection as much as that of an opposing party, and therefore need not be asserted by a party for us to invoke it. Freeman United Coal Mining Co. v. Office of Workers' Comp. Programs, Benefits Review, 957 F.2d 302, 305 (7th Cir.1992). Although we have no obligation to consider Hassebrock's Sixth Amendment claim, we can easily address and reject the claim on the merits. This constitutional claim is reviewed for plain error due to Hassebrock's failure to raise this argument below. See O'Connor, 656 F.3d at 643; Gearhart, 576 F.3d at 462-63. We evaluate constitutional speedy trial challenges based on a four-part test: (1) whether the delay was uncommonly long, (2) whether the government or the defendant is more to blame for the delay, (3) whether the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial in due course and (4) whether the defendant suffered prejudice as a result of the delay. Gearhart, 576 F.3d at 463 (citing Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992), and United States v. White, 443 F.3d 582, 589-90 (7th Cir.2006)). The first factor of the analysis looks at the length of the delay. This factor is not so much a factor as it is a threshold requirement. United States v. Loera, 565 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir.2009). We have also stated that delays approaching one year are presumptively prejudicial. White, 443 F.3d at 589-90. The delay in Hassebrock's case lasted for at most 286 days. A delay of 9.5 months does not seem to be approaching this one-year threshold. Because we have not set a clear cutoff, however, we briefly turn to the remaining factors. The second factor looks to whether the government or the defendant is more responsible for the delay. In this case, the government did not request any continuances. The defendant, on the other hand, requested two continuances. The defendant is held responsible for delay that results when the defendant seeks and obtains a continuance. See Gearhart, 576 F.3d at 463. The first motion requested that the trial date be continued for at least six months for various reasons related to giving defense counsel the opportunity to prepare. The second motion identified a possible scheduling conflict, though the record is not clear as to whether the defendant or the district court was the source of the conflict. The government acknowledges that the final month of delay was due to the court's scheduling conflict. [W]hile delays resulting from defense counsel's need to prepare are attributable to the defendant, delays resulting from a trial court's schedule are ultimately attributed to the government, but weighted less heavily. United States v. Hills, 618 F.3d 619, 630 (7th Cir.2010) (citations omitted). Therefore, Hassebrock bears more of the responsibility than the government for the delay in starting the trial. The third factor looks to whether the defendant timely asserted his right to a speedy trial. As stated above, Hassebrock did not do so because he did not raise this claim at any time while he was awaiting trial. This factor weighs in favor of the government. The fourth factor examines whether the defendant suffered any prejudice as a result of the delay. Hassebrock has not made any claim that the delay has prejudiced him. We examine prejudice resulting from a delay in trial in light of the interests that the Sixth Amendment seeks to protect. Hills, 618 F.3d at 632. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial seeks to (i) to prevent oppressive pretrial incarceration; (ii) to minimize anxiety and concern of the accused; and (iii) to limit the possibility that defense will be impaired. White, 443 F.3d at 591 (internal quotation marks omitted). Hassebrock was not incarcerated, has not alleged any anxiety that he suffered, and has not pointed to any ways in which his defense was impaired. Even granting Hassebrock the benefit of reaching the merits on a claim that was barely presented and insufficiently developed, we find no support under Gearhart for a Sixth Amendment violation caused by the pretrial delay.