Opinion ID: 2994162
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Speedy Trial Motion

Text: Ward was arrested in Los Angeles, California on January 11, 1996 on charges stemming from a false application for a passport. While Ward was in custody on the passport charges, he was separately indicted in the Central District of California for narcotics violations based on his distribution of drugs to the Hill conspiracy. On October 11, 1996, a criminal complaint was filed in the Northern District of Illinois charging Ward with narcotics violations in connection with the Hill conspiracy. On October 18, 1996, the narcotics charges pending against Ward in the Central District of California were dismissed after prosecutors received the Illinois complaint and an accompanying bench warrant for Ward’s arrest. On October 21, 1996, Ward was sentenced to probation on the passport case. Ward, however, remained in custody in California based on the Illinois complaint and warrant. During November and December 1996, the United States Marshals Service for the Northern District of Illinois attempted to obtain custody of Ward through its normal channels. These attempts were complicated due to erroneous information received from the Marshals Service Prisoner Coordination Section that Ward could not be transported to Chicago because there were still charges pending against him in California. On January 7, 1997, Ward was brought before a magistrate judge in the Central District of California for an out-of-district process hearing at which time Ward asserted his speedy trial concerns. The magistrate noted Ward’s objections and stated that Ward would need to raise them in the Northern District of Illinois following his transfer. On February 11, 1997, the Marshals Service in the Northern District of Illinois was informed that Ward was being held in California pending the results of his tuberculosis test./1 Ward was cleared for transportation to Chicago on approximately February 26, 1997. He arrived in the Northern District of Illinois on either March 6 or 7 and made his first appearance before a judicial officer on March 13, 1997. On March 27, 1997, Ward filed a motion to dismiss the indictment, arguing that the delay from the time his California charges were resolved until he was brought before a judicial officer in the Northern District of Illinois violated his right to a speedy trial under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. sec. 3161 et seq., the Sixth Amendment, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b). The district court denied Ward’s motion. Ward’s jury trial began on November 6, 1997. By its express terms, the Speedy Trial Act does not apply in the present case. Under the Act, the trial of an accused must commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending, whichever date last occurs. 18 U.S.C. sec. 3161(c)(1). Ward challenges only the delay from the time charges were filed in the Northern District of Illinois until March 13, 1997, the day he first appeared before a judicial officer in the Northern District of Illinois. This time period is outside of the Speedy Trial Act, and because Ward does not allege any improper delay during the time his Speedy Trial Act clock was running, his Speedy Trial Act claim fails. The Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial is similar to, but separate from, the right created by the Speedy Trial Act. United States v. Koller, 956 F.2d 1408, 1413 (7th Cir. 1992). The Supreme Court has established a four-factor balancing test to use in determining whether a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated. See Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651 (1992); Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-33 (1972). Under this test, we must consider 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, 505 U.S. at 651. In determining whether the delay was uncommonly long, we must consider the interval between accusation and trial, here over a year. See Doggett, 505 U.S. at 651. As the Supreme Court noted in Doggett, courts have generally found delays approaching one year to be presumptively prejudicial. Id. at 652 n.1. However, Ward challenges only the period between the return of the indictment and his first appearance in the Northern District of Illinois. Therefore, this factor does not weigh heavily toward either side. With respect to the second factor, Ward alleges that the delay was the result of a lack of diligence on the part of the prosecution. An examination of the record reveals that the delay resulted from miscommunication and the necessity of fulfilling certain prerequisites to transfer. Because this equates at the most to negligence on the part of the government, this factor must ’be weighted less heavily but nevertheless should be considered since the ultimate responsibility for such circumstances must rest with the government rather than with the defendant.’ United States v. Jackson, 542 F.2d 403, 407 (7th Cir. 1976) (quoting Barker, 407 U.S. at 531); see also Doggett, 505 U.S. at 657 (To be sure, to warrant granting relief, negligence unaccompanied by particularized trial prejudice must have lasted longer than negligence demonstrably causing such prejudice.). Ward contends that he fulfilled the third prong by asserting his speedy trial concerns immediately upon being brought before the magistrate in California for his out-of-district proceedings and by reasserting these concerns at his initial appearance in the Northern District of Illinois. However, Ward asserted his right to a speedy trial after much of the alleged improper delay had occurred. See United States v. Deleon, 710 F.2d 1218, 1222 (7th Cir. 1983). Ward knew of the charges against him and was represented by counsel from the time the California charges were resolved, yet he did nothing to assert his speedy trial right until his out-of-district process hearing. This factor does not weigh strongly in Ward’s favor. Finally, with respect to the prejudice prong, Ward does not allege that the delay impaired his ability to present his defense. Instead, Ward asserts that the stress and anxiety of being incarcerated and awaiting transportation to Chicago following the conclusion of the California cases in October 1996, were oppressive and increased the anxiety and concern on his behalf. While this is a proper factor to consider under the prejudice prong, it is insufficient to tip the scales in Ward’s favor. See Jackson, 542 F.2d at 409 (stating that general allegations of anxiety and concern constitute only minimal prejudice, especially when unenhanced by an impairment in presenting a defense). Weighing the four factors, we find that Ward’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was not violated. We review the district court’s denial of Ward’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b) claim for abuse of discretion. Deleon, 710 F.2d at 1223. Under Rule 48(b), if there is unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial, the court may dismiss the indictment, information or complaint. Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(b). Rule 48 is not circumscribed by the Sixth Amendment, Deleon, 710 F.2d at 1223; however, as the Eighth Circuit has recognized, it is driven by the same general considerations as the Sixth Amendment. United States v. DeLuna, 763 F.2d 897, 923 (8th Cir. 1985). Incorporating our analysis above and noting that there was no evidence of purposeful delay by the prosecution, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Ward’s motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to Rule 48(b). See, e.g., United States v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., Inc., 877 F.2d 734, 739 (9th Cir. 1989) (In general dismissal under Rule 48(b) is appropriate only where there is delay that is purposeful or oppressive. (internal quotations and citations omitted)).