Opinion ID: 618059
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Going to Trial after Reindictment

Text: Munez claims that even if the District Court had dismissed his case without prejudice, the outcome would have been different because he would not have pled guilty when the Government reindicted him. The only card that Munez would hold in that scenario that he did not hold at his actual guilty plea is the IADA violation. He cites this as the reason that he would plead not guilty, “given the potential for success on appeal” of his IADA claim. Munez Br. at 23. However, as discussed above, the IADA claim had limited potential for success on appeal. Moreover, had Munez pled not guilty, he would have faced the threat of a much longer sentence, in part because of less overlap with his New Jersey sentence. His chances of winning at trial were slight, as the Government had a strong case, including three audio-recorded drug buys without any apparent procedural blemish. Perhaps for these reasons, Munez was shaky on this question at his evidentiary hearing. The District Court “carefully observed [Munez] . . . . His self-interest in the matter, his evasive or even illogical demeanor while testifying, and his self-contradictions undermine his insistence that he would have gone to trial in this case after reindictment.” Munez, 2011 WL 221655, at . The record does not contradict the District Court’s observations, and we defer to the Court’s assessment of credibility based on demeanor. See United States v. Brown, 631 F.3d 638, 643 (3d Cir. 2011).