Opinion ID: 312648
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Appearance Bond, Severance and Speedy Trial

Text: 18 Appellant contends that the combined effect of failing to reduce appellant's bond to a more reasonable amount and of failing to grant him a separate trial, under the circumstances, deprived him of his right to a speedy trial. 19 The judge fixed appellant's appearance bond at $50,000, which appellant was unable to furnish. We find no abuse of discretion in the court's action. Although appellant was only twenty-six years old, he had already been convicted of at least two felonies. The instant charge was a serious one carrying with it a heavy penalty. Eventually appellant was sentenced to fifteen years in prison. Thus the court was fully justified in concluding that appellant was a bad bail risk. 20 As to the failure of the court to grant a severance, it is a cardinal principle of federal law, established by numerous decisions, that the granting of separate trials for codefendants is a matter within the discretion of the trial judge. See, e. g., United States v. Sanders, 463 F.2d 1086 (8th Cir. 1972); United States v. Schroeder, 433 F.2d 846 (8th Cir. 1970), cert. denied, 401 U.S. 943, 91 S.Ct. 951, 28 L.Ed.2d 224 (1971); Williams v. United States, 416 F.2d 1064 (8th Cir. 1969); Miller v. United States, 410 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 830, 90 S.Ct. 81, 24 L.Ed.2d 80 (1969). And it necessarily follows that error results only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion. We find no basis for faulting the judge's failure to sever. The indictment charged, and it stands admitted, that there was only one offense committed. The evidence of the government demonstrated that the three participants were Johnson, Money 1 and appellant. The defendants, having participated in the same act constituting the offense, were properly joined in the indictment and trial. See Kane v. United States, 431 F.2d 172 (8th Cir. 1970); Rule 8(b), Fed.R.Crim. P. 21 Nor is this a case in which severance would be necessary to protect the right to a speedy trial of one of the defendants joined for trial. We concur with the view that a defendant's right to a speedy trial may be impaired, under certain circumstances, by the fact that his codefendant has requested or consented to a continuance or series of continuances. See ABA Standards Relating to Joinder and Severance Sec. 2.3(b)(i) (App.Draft 1968). 22 However, a defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial cannot be established by any inflexible rule but can be determined only by a balancing test in which the conduct of the prosecution and that of the defendant are weighed. Ordinarily, the factors to be considered are: (1) Length of the delay; (2) reason for the delay; (3) the defendant's assertion of the right; and (4) prejudice to the defendant. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). See United States v. Weber, 479 F.2d 331 (8th Cir. 1973). 23 We hold that the delay in this case, slightly less than six months from the date of the filing of the indictment to date of trial, was not a denial of a speedy trial. To be sure, district courts must be especially sensitive to the right of a defendant, particularly one who is incarcerated, to a speedy trial. But that policy has consistently been adhered to in the Eastern District of Missouri. Proof of this statement is found in the reports of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. Indeed, in this case, Judge Meredith acted expeditiously by entering an order on September 15, 1972, nine days after the indictment had been filed, setting the case for trial on October 16. So far as this record reveals, the case would have been tried as scheduled but for the questioned mental competence of codefendant Money to stand trial. When the report of the first mental examination proved inconclusive, the judge, out of an abundance of caution, ordered another examination. Mindful as we are that the record shows that appellant and his attorney were present in court on October 16 and again on October 24, we fail to find any record of an objection by appellant or his attorney to passing the case on both occasions. A formal motion for a speedy trial was not filed by appellant until November 27, 1972, and submitted to Judge Meredith on December 4. Judge Meredith promptly set the case for trial on February 12, 1973. Only because of appellant's illness on February 12 was the date of trial further advanced to March 5. Thus the prosecutor was in no respect responsible for the delay now under attack. Furthermore, in the context of the trial, the delay not only did not prejudice appellant, it was probably to his advantage. Defendant Money, in her testimony, sought to exonerate appellant from any connection with the offense. Although admitting that she, appellant and Johnson were together on the dates in question, she denied any knowledge of the holdup and she corroborated portions of appellant's version of events. We are thus inclined to believe that if appellant had been separately tried during the period of time that Money was unavailable because of her mental examinations, that appellant would now be complaining of the deprivation of the testimony of a material witness. 24 In summary, we are not persuaded that this case meets any of the guidelines enunciated in Barker v. Wingo, supra. 2