Opinion ID: 856073
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Delayed Denial of Motion for New Trial

Text: Westmoreland filed his motion for a new trial on October 4, 2002. His direct appeal was pending, and his motion was filed as a supplement to his appeal. He was represented by counsel at the time, but he prepared his motion for a new trial pro se. His lawyer filed Westmoreland’s motion with the district court as a courtesy and described his action in a cover letter: “Although fashioned as an appellate brief, Mr. Westmoreland would like the pleading to be treated as a motion for [a] new trial based on newly discovered evidence, under Fed. R. Crim. P. Rule 33.” On January 22, 2003, the district court construed Westmoreland’s October 4 papers as a Rule 33 new trial motion and ordered the government to file a response within 20 days. The court’s order noted that after the court received the government’s response, it would determine whether “an evidentiary hearing is required for resolution of the motion.” On February 4, 2003, Westmoreland filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for a stay of the proceedings. The next day, he moved to stay the proceedings in the district court pending an interlocutory appeal reNo. 10-3961 17 garding the district court judge’s refusal to recuse him- self. Westmoreland’s request for a stay was granted on February 18, but his appeal was dismissed the next day. More than a year later, on April 26, 2004, Westmoreland filed a “Supplement to Statement of Facts, in Light of Additional Newly Discovered Facts.” On May 12, 2004, August 18, 2004, and September 22, 2004, the government filed requests for extensions of time to respond to Westmoreland’s pending motions. The record does not reflect whether the last of these requests was granted. In the meantime, Westmoreland filed a motion for sanctions against the government, arguing that its continued delays had prejudiced him. He argued that the federal rules “are designed to promote justice and prevent delay,” that “[a]ny further delay will be highly prejudicial to Westmoreland,” and that he “has been and is being severely prejudiced by the United States’ behavior in this case and Rule 11 sanctions should be imposed on the United States accordingly.” The government ultimately filed its response to Westmoreland’s new trial motion on September 29, 2004. Westmoreland filed his reply on December 1. On December 7, 2004, Westmoreland supplemented his pleadings with excerpts from the administrative hearing transcripts related to the Illinois State Police Department investigation into the Milkovich affair with Bronnie Westmoreland. By 2008, however, the district court had not ruled on any of the pending motions. In February of that year, Westmoreland filed a “Motion for Determination of 18 No. 10-3961 Status on Defendant’s Rule 33 Motion.” Still, nothing happened. At long last, the district court denied Westmoreland’s motion for a new trial and his motions to appoint counsel on December 13, 2010 — more than eight years after his original motion and six years after the government’s response. The district court’s denial addressed the substance of Westmoreland’s motions but did not comment on or explain this extended delay. Westmoreland argues that the district court’s delay in ruling on his motion for a new trial violated the Sixth Amendment’s promise of “the right to a speedy and public trial.” Both the accused and society as a whole have an interest in prompt resolution of criminal proceedings. See Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 519-20 (1972). Faded memories and lost evidence may impair a defendant’s ability to defend himself if too much time passes between the accusation and the trial. See id. at 521. Delay may also exacerbate a defendant’s anxiety and unnecessarily drain a defendant’s financial resources. See Moore v. Arizona, 414 U.S. 25, 27 (1973). Our cases, however, have not addressed whether the right to a speedy trial attaches to a post-trial motion for new trial. The Tenth Circuit, in United States v. Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236, 1243 (10th Cir. 2006), reasoned that because concerns calling for a speedy trial also apply to motions for a new trial based on newly dis- covered evidence, it would apply the speedy trial analysis. In doing so, it held that a four-year delay in denying a motion for a new trial did not violate the Sixth Amendment. We need not decide whether we No. 10-3961 19 agree with the Tenth Circuit that the speedy trial right attaches to a motion for a new trial. Even if we assume that the right attached, Westmoreland cannot show that such a right was violated. A Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim turns on the following general factors: “whether delay before trial was uncommonly long, whether the government or the criminal defendant is more to blame for that delay, whether, in due course, the defendant asserted his right to a speedy trial, and whether he suffered prejudice as the delay’s result.” Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992); see also United States v. White, 443 F.3d 582, 589 (7th Cir. 2006). Although Westmoreland is able to satisfy some of the factors with respect to his motion for a new trial, he cannot show prejudice — which, because he was convicted, must be “substantial” and “demonstrable.” Yehling, 456 F.3d at 1245, quoting Perez v. Sullivan, 793 F.2d 249, 256 (10th Cir. 1986). This claim therefore fails. The first factor, an uncommonly long delay, “is not so much a factor as it is a threshold requirement.” United States v. Loera, 565 F.3d 406, 412 (7th Cir. 2009). Delays approaching one year are “presumptively prejudicial,” White, 443 F.3d at 589-90, and the district court’s delay here was uncommonly long. We recognize that district courts face challenging caseloads and that some reasonable delays are inevitable. In this case, however, the district court failed to take any substantive action on Westmoreland’s motion for eight years and has offered no explanation for its delay. This delay was plainly ex20 No. 10-3961 cessive and, on this record, unexplained. We are unable to discern a reason for it from the post-verdict docket in this case, which does not appear to be unusually busy or complex. We also cannot rely on the district court’s explanation, for the court gave none. Without more, though, even this unacceptably excessive delay is not sufficient to establish prejudice and to require that the murder convictions be set aside. When we analyze the prejudice element of a constitutional speedy trial claim, we ordinarily weigh three interests: (1) preventing oppressive pretrial incarceration; (2) minimizing the anxiety and concern of the accused; and (3) limiting the possibility that the defense will be impaired. See Barker, 407 U.S. at 532. When Westmoreland filed his motion for a new trial he had already been convicted of a successful conspiracy to commit murder and had been sentenced to serve the rest of his life in prison. When the district court finally reviewed his motion for new trial, it found that the motion had no merit, a finding with which we agree. Given this posture, we must reject Westmoreland’s arguments. He argues that he was prejudiced by the eight years that he suffered anxiety and worry while waiting for resolution of his motion for new trial. But Westmoreland’s motion for new trial did not challenge his conviction and concurrent 240 month sentence for the drug conspiracy. Thus, while he waited for a ruling on his motion for new trial, he was not incarcerated any longer than he would have been otherwise, and we are not persuaded that any additional anxiety or worry because of the district court’s delayed ruling requires No. 10-3961 21 that he be exonerated for the murder. Once he was convicted and sentenced and his conviction and sentence had been affirmed on appeal, his incarceration and any resulting anxiety or worry resulted from his crimes, not from delay in deciding his motion for a new trial. Westmoreland also argues that he was prejudiced by the delay because it became difficult to preserve documentary evidence and witness testimony over that time, and that while he waited for his ruling, his co-defendant (Abeln) committed suicide. Again, Westmoreland had been convicted and his convictions affirmed. His trial defense had not been impaired. Abeln’s later suicide did not affect Westmoreland’s post-conviction proceedings. Westmoreland does not suggest that if Abeln had lived, he would have recanted his inculpatory trial testimony or would have provided any other exculpatory evidence. The arguments raised in the motion for a new trial regarding new evidence lacked merit. Westmoreland was not prejudiced by his inability to preserve evidence to support a meritless motion. While we do not condone the delay, without a showing of prejudice the wait Westmoreland endured while his motion for a new trial was pending could not have amounted to a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial warranting dismissal of the charges on which he was convicted.