Opinion ID: 682507
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Due Process of Law and Speedy Trial

Text: 6 Hayes can succeed on claims initially raised here only if he can show that there was error, that the error was plain, and that it affected his substantial rights, i.e., the error affected the outcome of the district court proceedings. Olano, --- U.S. at ---- - ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1777-78; see also Fed.R.Crim.P. 52(b). We do not correct a forfeited error unless it  'seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.'  United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1, 15, 105 S.Ct. 1038, 1046, 84 L.Ed.2d 1 (1985) (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 297 U.S. 157, 160, 56 S.Ct. 391, 392, 80 L.Ed. 555 (1936)). Plain error is reversed only in the case in which a miscarriage of justice would otherwise result. United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 163 n. 14, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 1592 n. 14, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). 7 1. Due Process of Law. Hayes claims he was denied due process of law by the Government's undue delay in indicting him. He testified before the grand jury in December 1984 and was told he was a target, but the first indictment was not filed until March 1987, five years after the offenses for which he was convicted. 8 To establish a due process violation based on preindictment delay, a defendant must show that the reason for the delay violates our fundamental conceptions of justice. United States v. Lovasco, 431 U.S. 783, 790-91, 97 S.Ct. 2044, 2049, 52 L.Ed.2d 752 (1977); see also United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307, 324, 92 S.Ct. 455, 465, 30 L.Ed.2d 468 (1971). In this circuit, the defendant must show that he suffered substantial prejudice and that the delay was the product of deliberate action by the Government to gain a tactical advantage. United States v. Young, 906 F.2d 615, 620 (11th Cir.1990); see also United States v. Benson, 846 F.2d 1338, 1341 (11th Cir.1988); Stoner v. Graddick, 751 F.2d 1535, 1543 (11th Cir.1985). 9 Hayes does not allege that the Government intentionally delayed the indictment against him in order to gain a tactical advantage. There is also no evidence in the record that it did so. On the contrary, it is undisputed that the investigation was ongoing during the three years after Hayes testified before the first grand jury. Hayes admits that he was offered an opportunity to testify before a successor grand jury in 1987, and was told that the scope of the investigation had expanded. There is no due process violation where delay is the result of the need for further investigation, even if the defendant may have been somewhat prejudiced by the lapse of time. Lovasco, 431 U.S. at 794-96, 97 S.Ct. at 2051-52; see also Benson, 846 F.2d at 1342-43 (no violation even though eight-year investigative delay prejudiced defendant); Stoner, 751 F.2d at 1543 (nineteen-year delay presumed proper absent any evidence that state delayed for purpose of harassment). Hayes' right to due process of law was not violated. 10 2. Speedy Trial. The five-year delay between the indictment and the trial is more troublesome. The Supreme Court has set out a four-part test for determining whether the delay between the initiation of criminal proceedings and the beginning of trial violates a defendant's right to a speedy trial. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The test requires the court to consider the length of the delay, the cause of the delay, the defendant's assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and the presence or absence of prejudice resulting from the delay. Id. at 530-33, 92 S.Ct. at 2192-93. 11 a. Length of the delay. The delay in this case of five years is sufficient to trigger a careful review of the other three Barker factors required to establish a violation of the right to speedy trial. 12 b. Cause of the delay. The Government has a duty to make a diligent, good faith effort to bring an indicted defendant to trial promptly. Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374, 383, 89 S.Ct. 575, 579-80, 21 L.Ed.2d 607 (1969). Nevertheless, an allegation of unconstitutional delay must be evaluated by the facts of each particular case. United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. at 325, 92 S.Ct. at 466. 13 The Government's reason for sealing the indictment and delaying trial against Hayes was a valid one. The Government was attempting to apprehend Hayes' co-defendant, Thom, who was living in Zimbabwe. The indictment was sealed because the Government feared that Thom would frustrate its attempts to secure his arrest and deportation if he were aware of it. 14 During the subsequent five years, the Government exercised diligence in attempting to persuade the Government of Zimbabwe to arrest and deport Thom. In January of 1992, having determined that its efforts would not be successful (although we note that the Government ultimately did secure his arrest in and deportation from England), the Government moved to unseal the indictment and proceeded to trial against Hayes. 15 This is not a case where the Government made no efforts to prosecute the defendant during the delay. Cf. Doggett v. United States, --- U.S. ----, 112 S.Ct. 2686, 120 L.Ed.2d 520 (1992). On the contrary, during the period of delay, the Government made persistent and documented efforts to prosecute Thom. Between June 1987 and November 29, 1991, the Government filed seventeen reports describing, inter alia, its efforts to have the United Kingdom intercede on behalf of the United States; repeated requests to Zimbabwe through the American Embassy and the U.K. to effect Thom's arrest and extradition or deportation; the filing of notices on Interpol's computer system; inquiries to the Zimbabwean Embassy concerning Thom's whereabouts; discussions between the U.K. and the United States concerning a request for extradition if Thom were deported to Britain; the filing of a provisional arrest warrant in the U.K.; and attempts by the United States to locate Thom in several other foreign countries. 16 Even though these efforts caused a lengthy delay in prosecuting Hayes, the Government's persistence in trying to locate Thom was not unreasonable. There always appeared a reasonable expectation of success in obtaining jurisdiction over Thom, and the Government was diligent in its efforts to do so. Under these circumstances, the delay in prosecuting Hayes will not be held against the Government. See United States v. Tranakos, 911 F.2d 1422, 1428 (10th Cir.1990). 17 c. Demand for speedy trial. A defendant has the responsibility to assert a speedy trial claim. Barker, 407 U.S. at 529, 92 S.Ct. at 2191. The failure to assert the right will make it difficult for a defendant to prove that he was denied a speedy trial. Id. at 532, 92 S.Ct. at 2193. Hayes concedes that at trial he neither challenged the post-indictment delay by filing a motion to dismiss the indictment, nor made a demand for a speedy trial at that time. In fact, Hayes successfully moved to have the district court declare his case complex, further delaying his trial. These actions undercut Hayes' claim of error of constitutional magnitude, and militate against a finding that the delay was plain error. 18 d. Prejudice to the defendant. In cases involving lengthy delay, prejudice may be presumed. Doggett, --- U.S. at ----, 112 S.Ct. at 2693. Where the Government has pursued its prosecution with reasonable diligence, however, specific prejudice must still be shown. Id. This is especially true where the delay is reviewed only for plain error. Olano, --- U.S. at ----, 113 S.Ct. at 1778. Hayes argues that one witness was unable to recall certain events in her trial testimony. Beyond this, he asserts only a vague allegation that he was prejudiced by the erosion of exculpatory evidence and testimony. 19 Such conclusory allegations do not establish the required showing of prejudice to prevail under the plain error standard. This court has consistently held that conclusory assertions of prejudice, including unsubstantiated allegations of witnesses' faded memories, are insufficient to constitute proof of actual prejudice. See e.g., Young, 906 F.2d at 620; United States v. Russo, 796 F.2d 1443, 1451 (11th Cir.1986). 20 We conclude that Hayes' right to a speedy trial was not violated.