Opinion ID: 414310
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Construction of Section 3161(d)(1)

Text: 6 Section 3161(d)(1), rather than section 3161(h)(6), is applicable when a complaint, as distinguished from an indictment, is dismissed by the government and an indictment is later filed. United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d 289, 292 (1st Cir.1982); United States v. Peters, 587 F.2d 1267, 1273 (D.C.Cir.1978); Comm. on Administration of the Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference, Guidelines to the Administration of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 as Amended (Dec., 1979), revised Aug. 1981, at 15-16. 7 The meaning of section 3161(d)(1) is not apparent at first glance: If ... any charge contained in a complaint ... is dismissed ..., and thereafter ... [an] indictment is filed ... based on the same conduct ..., the provisions of [subsections 3161(b) and (c) ] shall [apply to] such subsequent ... indictment .... The section can be read to require that indictments filed after the dismissal of initial charges must be returned within thirty days of the original arrest. This interpretation, however, must be incorrect. First, such an interpretation makes section 3161(d)(1) mere surplusage because section 3161(b) already performs that function (if one disregards the actual meaning of section 3161(d)(1)). Second, this interpretation renders the Speedy Trial Act inconsistent with traditional speedy trial guarantees, which focus on pending criminal proceedings. See United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 1497, 1502, 71 L.Ed.2d 696 (1982) (holding that Sixth Amendment speedy trial guarantee is inapplicable to period between dismissal of military charge and indictment on civilian charge). Third, this interpretation contradicts the legislative history of the Speedy Trial Act. 8 [Section 3161(d)(1) ] allows latitude to the prosecutor to re-institute prosecution of a criminal defendant whose case has previously been dismissed on non-speedy trial grounds without having to comply with the time limits imposed by the filing of the earlier complaint. To require a prosecutor to conform to indictment and trial time limits which were set by the filing of the original complaint in order to reopen a case on the basis of new evidence would be an insurmountable burden. Thus, when subsequent complaints are brought, the time limits will begin to run from the date of the filing of the subsequent complaint. 8 9 S.Rep. No. 93-1021, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 33 (1974), reprinted in A. Partridge, Legislative History of Title I of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 78-79 (1980) (footnote added). Therefore, the correct interpretation of section 3161(d)(1) is that after the dismissal of a complaint, the Act's time limits run anew from the date of the filing of the subsequent complaint or indictment. United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d at 293; United States v. Abernathy, 688 F.2d 576, 580 (8th Cir.1982); Frase, The Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 43 U.Chi.L.Rev. 667, 696 (1976). 9 10 This court, however, has questioned in dictum whether section 3161(d)(1) applies when the complaint is dismissed after the time period for indictment has expired. 11 It may be argued that since the Government did not dismiss the complaint on speedy trial grounds, the time limits of 3161(b) began to run when the indictment was filed. This would probably be true if the complaint had been dismissed within the 60 day period. 10 Here, however, the Government's praecipe for dismissal was filed 62 days after appellant's arrest. The complaint was clearly dismissible under the provisions of the Speedy Trial Act. We cannot believe that Congress intended that under these circumstances the time limits would begin to run anew from the date of the indictment, particularly in view of the excerpts from the Senate Report quoted above. We need not pursue this question further since we conclude that in any event counts one through three did not arise out of the same criminal episode as the charges in the dismissed complaint. 12 United States v. Peters, 587 F.2d at 1273 (footnote added). 11 The Senate Report referred to in the above quotation expressed concern that section 3161(d)(1) might be used to evade the speedy trial time limits of the Act. S.Rep. No. 93-1021, supra, at 33, reprinted in A. Partridge, supra, at 79. 13 On the other hand, the broad language of several cases indicates that section 3161(d)(1) applies even if the complaint is dismissed after the time period for indictment has expired. 14 [Section 3161(d)(1) ] literally instructs that after a complaint is dismissed against a defendant, the government is free to file another complaint, or to file an indictment or information, and that the applicable time periods run anew from the filing of the subsequent complaint, information, or indictment, as the case may be. In other words, the events which transpired prior to the dismissal of the complaint are simply irrelevant in computing the time limits within which the defendant can be indicted or tried. 15 United States v. Belleville, 505 F.Supp. 1083, 1084 (E.D.Mich.1981) (emphasis added). In United States v. Krynicki, 689 F.2d at 293, the court held that Sec. 3161(b) applies only where, at the time of indictment, the charge upon which a defendant was arrested and upon which a complaint was issued is still pending. Similar language is used in United States v. Abernathy, 688 F.2d at 580, and United States v. Jones, 676 F.2d 327, 330 (8th Cir.1982). 16 We find neither the language in Peters nor the language in Belleville and Krynicki decisive. The statement in Peters is dictum, and Peters has been criticized for relying on a Senate Report 12 prepared when the draft of the Act 13 did not permit reprosecution where the earlier dismissal had been based on speedy trial grounds. See United States v. Abernathy, 688 F.2d at 579-80. The final version of the Speedy Trial Act clearly allows reprosecution after dismissal without prejudice for violations of the Act, see section 3162(a), 14 yet Peters discusses indictment after dismissal on speedy trial grounds as though it were impermissible. See United States v. Peters, 587 F.2d at 1273. Likewise, neither Belleville, Krynicki, Abernathy, nor Jones involved the dismissal of a complaint after the time period for indictment had elapsed. As applied to the present case, the broad language in those cases is dicta because the courts making the statements may not have considered the present fact situation. 17 In contrast to Belleville and the others, two cases have involved the dismissal of a complaint after the thirty-day period for indictment had expired. In United States v. Ford, 532 F.Supp. 352 (D.D.C.1981), the defendant was arrested on June 21, 1981, and charged in a complaint the next day. The complaint was dismissed on July 27, thirty-five days after charges were filed, upon motion of the government. The defendant was indicted on September 11, eighty-one days after charges were filed. Without discussing section 3161(d)(1), the court held that dismissal of an indictment is mandatory when the time period of section 3161(b) is exceeded. Id. at 353. In United States v. Caparella, 542 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.N.Y.1982), the defendant was arrested and arraigned on June 10, 1981. On July 31, fifty-one days after the arrest, the magistrate dismissed the complaint on the government's ex parte motion, without specifying whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice. On September 16 the government filed an information against the defendant. The defendant moved to dismiss the information because the government had failed to dismiss the complaint within thirty days of his arrest. Implicitly recognizing that dismissing a complaint beyond the period for indictment does not always require the dismissal of a subsequently filed indictment, the court remanded the case to the magistrate for a determination of whether the complaint should have been dismissed with or without prejudice. Id. at 828-29. 18 We find the approach of the court in Caparella and of the trial court in the present case convincing. When a complaint is dismissed after the thirty-day period for indictment has elapsed, and there is no determination whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, a subsequently filed indictment should be dismissed only if the complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice. This approach presents no advantage to the government for winning the race to dismiss the complaint and then filing an indictment. If the complaint is dismissed on the government's ex parte motion, the defendant can later compel a determination of his speedy trial rights, 15 which will in no way be prejudiced by the government's dismissal of the complaint. Under the broad language of Belleville, however, the government's winning the race would render the untimely dismissal of the complaint irrelevant. Similarly, the approach of Caparella and of the trial court precludes the defendant from gaining an advantage by waiting until after his indictment before bringing his speedy trial motion, and thereby imposing on the government the burden of reindictment if the charges are dismissed without prejudice. Under the trial court's approach, the indictment is dismissed only if the complaint should have been dismissed with prejudice. Cf. United States v. Cameron, 510 F.Supp. 645, 650-51 (D.Md.1981) (recognizing that where reindictment is inevitable, dismissing the indictment without prejudice on speedy trial grounds is a useless act and harmful to the United States in terms of the expense and inconvenience in presenting the matter anew before the Grand Jury and recommencing the entire pretrial process). Dismissal of the complaint after the period for indictment should not always bar reprosecution, as was implied in Peters, nor should the untimely dismissal of a complaint always be irrelevant, as was stated in Belleville. Under the approach of Caparella and the trial court in the instant case, the speedy trial issue is addressed just as it would have been if the issue had been raised when the government dismissed the complaint. This approach does not open a loophole through which the government may evade the Act's speedy trial time limits as was feared in Peters. Rather, it preserves the Act's scheme of time limits and employs the Act's balancing test to determine whether the complaint should have been dismissed with or without prejudice.