Opinion ID: 498409
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Twenty-Eight Month Delay

Text: 14 Valona was arrested on May 11, 1983 and indicted July 2, 1985. He claims that the government's delay in bringing the indictment led to the unavailability of an important defense witness, Thomas Daniels. Daniels died in a plane wreck in the spring of 1985. On November 26, 1985 the magistrate denied Valona's request for an evidentiary hearing on his claim of pre-indictment delay and recommended that Valona's motion to dismiss based on that same claim likewise be denied. The magistrate reasoned that it was unlikely that Daniels would testify, and if he did, his testimony was not clearly exculpatory. Even assuming that substantial prejudice occurred the magistrate went on to find that the government's reason for the delay, to protect the identity of an informant, was a proper motive. In the pretrial order the trial court adopted the magistrate's recommendation and at the end of trial denied Valona's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, in part finding the pre-indictment delay issue had been previously considered and denied. 15 The statute of limitations is the primary source of repose and protection from prosecutions based on stale evidence. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 322, 92 S.Ct. 455, 464, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). The Supreme Court, however, has held that the due process clause of the fifth amendment provides some protection against pre-indictment delay that has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant as to outweigh the government's reasons for delay. United States v. Williams, 738 F.2d 172, 175 (7th Cir.1984) (citing inter alia United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 789, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2048, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977)). 16 The trial court undertook the proper two-step analysis for determining the merits of a claim of prejudice based on pre-indictment delay. First, the defendant must establish that he has suffered actual and substantial prejudice. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 789-90, 97 S.Ct. at 2048; Marion, 404 U.S. at 324-26, 92 S.Ct. at 465-66. See, e.g., United States v. Wellman, 830 F.2d 1453 (7th Cir.1987); United States v. Antonino, 830 F.2d 798 (7th Cir.1987). Proof of actual prejudice makes a due process claim concrete and ripe for adjudication, [and] it [does not] make[ ] the claim automatically valid. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 789, 97 S.Ct. at 2048. Second, if the defendant satisfies step one, the court then will balance the prejudice to the defendant against the government's reasons for the delay. Id. at 790, 97 S.Ct. at 2048. If the delay has caused such substantial prejudice to the defendant so as to outweigh the government's reason for the delay, the indictment may be dismissed. Williams, 738 F.2d at 175. Two lines of cases guide the step-two balancing analysis. Id. at 175 n. 1. Under one line, this court has held that the government bears the burden of demonstrating that the delay was necessary. See, e.g., United States v. Solomon, 688 F.2d 1171, 1179 (7th Cir.1982). Under the other line of cases this court has held that the defendant bears the burden of demonstrating that some impermissible purpose or ulterior motive motivated the delay. See, e.g., United States v. Watkins, 709 F.2d 475, 479 (7th Cir.1983). Of course a resolution of the conflicting authority under step two need not be undertaken if the defendant has not satisfied the prerequisites of step one. Williams, 738 F.2d at 175. That is the case here. The defendant has failed to establish actual and substantial prejudice. 1 17 It is clear that the death of a witness alone is insufficient to establish actual prejudice. See Williams, 738 F.2d at 176 (death of witness insufficient where defendant failed to provide evidence linking witness to defendant's version of the facts and court only had peripheral facts it gleaned); Solomon, 688 F.2d at 1179-80 (deaths of witnesses during defendant's voluntary flight fail to demonstrate substantial prejudice). See also Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 796, 97 S.Ct. at 2051 (appears Court implicitly determined that deaths of witnesses, combined with fact that one witness supplied several of the guns and the other was defendant's brother who witnessed gun transactions, were prejudicial since it undertook a review of the government's reasons for the pre-indictment delay). Valona must show something more than the simple fact of Daniels' death and concomitant unavailability for trial. 18 According to Valona he has shown that something more. In his brief Valona claims that Daniels was at the Marriott on May 11, 1983, where he was seen by federal agents; Daniels knew Valona was at the Marriott for a purpose unrelated to drug trafficking; Daniels participated in several conversations with Valona regarding the purpose of the business between Valona and Schabilion conducted on May 11; and it was Daniels' car that Valona was seen driving on April 22, 1983. Valona claims this would have allowed Valona to controvert Schabilion's version of events and to demonstrate Valona's intention not to act as a principal, aider and abettor, or conspirator in the drug sale. 19 Earlier, from the record, Valona had stated that Daniels would testify ... that the defendant advised him he was selling the gems which were going to be used in a cocaine transaction, but that the defendant's only interest was in selling the gems. Valona argues that the government could have verified this information by reviewing telephone and automobile records and speaking with the woman Valona allegedly was meeting at the hotel. The government contends that it is clear that Daniels' testimony, even if believed, would nevertheless establish aider and abettor liability and still result in Valona's conviction as a principal. Valona argues that presence at the scene of a crime, even coupled with the knowledge that another is to commit a crime, is not sufficient to establish aiding and abetting. Valona cites several cases for this proposition, none of which are Seventh Circuit opinions. In one of those cases, United States v. Campa, the court stated the following: The vital element to be proven is that the aider and abettor shared in the principal's essential criminal intent. This may be inferred from the attendant facts and circumstances. 679 F.2d 1006, 1010 (1st Cir.1982) (citing United States v. Beck, 615 F.2d 441, 449 (7th Cir.1980)). It was not error for the trial court to infer that the evidence overwhelmingly suggested that at a minimum Valona shared in the principal's essential criminal intent and would be liable as an aider and abettor. 20 It is not only that the hypothetical testimony may give rise to guilt on an aider and abettor theory that weakens Valona's argument. In the Williams case this court stated that the [witness'] death and consequent inability to testify on [defendant's] behalf would have prejudiced [defendant's] case only if we are convinced that [the witness] would have testified, that his testimony would have withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found [him] a credible witness.... 738 F.2d at 176. Of course it is implicit in this analysis that even if we are convinced testimony as outlined would occur, we must still evaluate this testimony against the other trial evidence to determine if indeed its introduction would affect the trial outcome. 21 Daniels' role is too peripheral to view his absence as substantially prejudicial to Valona. In addition we are not convinced that his testimony would have withstood cross-examination, and that the jury would have found [him] a credible witness. Id. Indeed, agent Hehr's affidavit indicated that the government believed that any truthful testimony by Daniels would inculpate Valona since Daniels was believed to have been involved with Valona in drug trafficking. It must be remembered that the facts critical to Valona's conviction are that Valona attempted to purchase ten kilograms of cocaine by exchanging $285,000 in currency plus collateral consisting of jewelry and silver coins for what he thought was ten kilograms of cocaine. 22 Daniels did not directly participate. Only Rapkin, Schabilion, and Valona were in the Marriott room when the final consummation of the planned exchange occurred. Schabilion and Valona, and not Daniels, were in the parking lot finalizing the physical exchange when they were arrested. Even if Daniels was in the hotel in and around the time of the transaction he was not a part of the actual transaction that occurred in the room and in the parking lot, which served as the basis for the Valona prosecution. Further, the record does not demonstrate that any federal agents observed Daniels at the hotel nor are we moved by Valona's argument that the government could have verified some of his claims regarding Daniels. We believe it is neither incumbent upon the government to undertake such an exercise nor would such verification do any more than supply collateral facts insufficient to overcome the material evidence presented by Schabilion and others. Schabilion's uncontroverted testimony, based upon his firsthand observation, demonstrates Valona's role. (Rapkin, the other firsthand observer, did not testify.) If we were to hold otherwise, our decision would rest on no more than uncorroborated speculation that is neither rooted in actual testimony nor evaluated by a trier of fact. See Antonino, 830 F.2d 798 (not enough for defendant to testify evidence might exist, if not corroborated). We are not saying that a defendant may never be able to demonstrate substantial prejudice, but as the Williams case demonstrates and we have discussed here, several hurdles must be overcome before this may be accomplished. Valona has not overcome them here. This holding is not to be construed, however, as a ready excuse for the government to justify long pre-indictment delays upon the facile announcement of an explanation. In those cases where substantial prejudice has been shown the government's explanation must be reasonable and must be weighed and considered in the light of all the circumstances in the particular case, including any possible prejudice to the defendant. An explanation found sufficient in one case may not be in the next. 23 Valona also complains that an evidentiary hearing should have been held. A trial court need only grant an evidentiary hearing on the issue of outrageous government conduct when the defendant has presented specific facts that are sufficient to raise a significant doubt about the propriety of the government's actions. United States v. Swiatek, 819 F.2d 721, 725 (7th Cir.1987) (not error to deny request for evidentiary hearing on issue of outrageous government conduct). Beyond these meager guidelines, however, the determination of whether a hearing is required is necessarily dependent upon the particular facts which attend a particular request, and the district court is properly left with a certain amount of discretion in this regard. United States v. Losing, 539 F.2d 1174, 1178 (8th Cir.1976) (hearing not required on motion to suppress), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 969, 98 S.Ct. 516, 54 L.Ed.2d 547 (1977). Accord Solomon, 688 F.2d at 1178 (the trial court has wide discretion in determining the materiality and relevance of evidence). An abuse of discretion is established only where no reasonable man could agree with the district court; if reasonable men could differ as to the propriety of the court's action, no abuse of discretion has been shown. Smith v. Widman Trucking & Excavating Inc., 627 F.2d 792, 795-96 (7th Cir.1980). Also, [t]o establish an abuse of discretion, [the defendant] must show that actual prejudice resulted from the denial. United States v. Hamm, 786 F.2d 804, 806 (7th Cir.1986) (denial of continuance did not prejudice defendant as it did not result in ineffective assistance of counsel). The Court need not hold a hearing on the factual issues presented by the instant motions, but may instead rely on pleadings, exhibits and affidavits in the record as the evidentiary basis for its findings. United States v. Hutchins, 489 F.Supp. 710, 711 (N.D.Ind.1980) (evidentiary hearing unnecessary on pretrial motion to dismiss based upon violations of the sixth amendment and the Speedy Trial Act). Accord United States v. Cohen, 489 F.2d 945, 952 (2d Cir.1973) (trial court properly relied on the transcript, affidavit, and exhibits in deciding pretrial motion to dismiss based upon double jeopardy); United States v. Gordon, 634 F.2d 639, 642 (1st Cir.1980) (trial court could rely on the affidavits and judicial notice to dispose of the pretrial motion alleging violation of double jeopardy). See also United States v. Fischel, 686 F.2d 1082, 1095 (5th Cir.1982) (proper to exclude informant as witness in hearing on pretrial motion to dismiss for outrageous government conduct since the court is not required to hold a hearing at all). 24 The district court has wide discretion in determining how it receives evidence on a motion to dismiss based upon pre-indictment delay. It may hold a hearing, rely on pleadings and affidavits alone, or combine the two. Here the trial court determined that the facts presented by Valona did not demonstrate the need for a hearing and instead found that the evidence demonstrated that Valona had not suffered substantial prejudice and the government had not delayed for an improper purpose. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the request for an evidentiary hearing.