Document: 487 U.S. 326 108 S.Ct. 2413 101 L.Ed.2d 297 UNITED STATES, Petitionerv.Larry Lee TAYLOR. No. 87-573. Argued April 25, 1988. Decided June 24, Syllabus The Speedy Trial Act of 1974 requires that an indictment be dismissed if the defendant is not brought to trial within a 70-day period, and court, in determining whether dismiss with or without prejudice, "consider, among others, each following factors: seriousness offense; facts circumstances . which led dismissal; impact reprosecution on administration [the and] justice." 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2). After respondent failed appear for his federal narcotics charges, was scheduled commence Federal District Court Seattle one day prior expiration 15 days otherwise excludable under elapsed between subsequent arrest California issuance by grand jury superseding indictment. Respondent's return during this period delayed various reasons, including slow processing Government. granted respondent's 3162(a)(2) motion finding that, although charged serious offenses, Government's "lackadaisical behavior" inexcusable justice required stern response. Appeals affirmed, concluding light case's "peculiar circumstances," lower court had abused its discretion dismissing prejudice order send strong message Government must observed. Held: 1. establishes framework guides district determinations appellate review such determinations. Pp. 332-337. (a) Section 3162(a)(2)'s language courts consider at least three factors specified section. Act's legislative history indicates should also considered before barred, decision left court's guided discretion, neither remedy having priority. 332-335. (b) carefully as applied particular case articulate clearly their effect rendering decision. On appeal, reviewing undertake more substantive scrutiny than would absent legislatively identified standards, ascertain has properly law it ignored slighted factor Congress deemed pertinent choice remedy. When statutory have been considered, supporting factual findings are error, judgment how opposing considerations balance lightly disturbed. 335-337. 2. Analysis record above deciding bar reprosecution, erred holding otherwise. did explain factored offenses charged. Rather, relied heavily unexplained characterization conduct "lackadaisical," while failing other relevant leading dismissal. Seemingly were brevity delay bringing consequential lack respondent, well own illicit contribution trial. desire unexcused delays will tolerated definition implicated almost every Act, and, standing alone, does suffice justify barring all circumstances. 337-343. 821 F.2d 1377 (CA9 1987), reversed. BLACKMUN, J., delivered opinion Court, REHNQUIST, C.J., WHITE, O'CONNOR, KENNEDY, JJ., joined, but Part II-A SCALIA, joined. filed concurring opinion, post, p. ---. part, STEVENS, dissenting BRENNAN MARSHALL, Edwin S. Kneedler, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Ian G. Loveseth, San Francisco, Cal., respondent. Justice BLACKMUN Court. 1 This us bounds choose dismissal violation 1974, amended, 3161 et seq. (1982 ed. Supp. IV). 2 * July 1984, Larry Taylor indicted charges conspiracy distribute cocaine possession 400 grams intent distribute. His United States Western Washington November 19, bring individual See 3161(c)(1).1 Respondent trial, bench warrant issued arrest. February 5, 1985, arrested local police officers Mateo County, state subsequently dismissed. number some related being testify defense witness prosecution then pending others involving processing, convenience Marshals Service, what later describe "lackadaisical" attitude part App. Pet. Cert. 30a. back Francisco retrial prosecution, against adding failure-toappear charge based nonappearance 3 Upon Seattle, moved him, alleging violated. rejected argument because speedy clock began anew when 1985. considering time 1985,2 determined large, testifying held reasonable transporting him 3161(h).3 concluded, however, despite these exclusions, nonexcludable passed, thus expired 14 indictment, original therefore mandated. 27a-29a.4 4 found there "no excuse government's lackadaisical behavior case." Id., observed explanations inconsistent; Service produce expeditiously requested do so County judge; even after dropped, immediately magistrate fugitive warrant. noted responded, "dispatch," accommodating Service's interest moving several prisoners once instead provided Act. It said: 5 "[T]he concludes [Act] seriously impaired respond sternly instant violation. If tacitly condoned become hollow guarantee." 30a-31a. 6 counts reprosecution.5 7 A divided panel Ninth Circuit affirmed. (1987). full agreed Court's failure restart clock, confirmed calculation flight 1383-1385. 8 Applying abuse-of-discretion standard, reviewed discussion drug prejudice. Characterizing purpose sending "a government" "observed," respect recaptured fugitives, majority concluded: "Under peculiar case, we see no need disturb ruling appeal. acted discretion." 1386. 9 third judge concurred violation, concluded reprosecution. chronology disputing whether, matter, act reasonably, he felt "none shown case—although admittedly non-excludable statute—was studied, deliberate, callous nature prejudice." 1387. 10 petition, suggested further guidance needed application provision, 3162, certiorari. 484 1025, 747, 98 760 (1988). II A. 11 Neither party asked courts' actually occurred.6 And statute admits ambiguity requirement demonstrated, "the information shall defendant." only question us, therefore, rather permitting In 3162(a)(2), instructs: 12 "If limit section 3161(c) extended 3161(h), defendant. consider, chapter 13 As plain from language, free simply exercise equitable powers fashioning appropriate remedy, but, proceed factors. Because employed somewhat broad open-ended turn briefly additional indication contemplated made. There apparently those who thought 120 Cong.Rec. 41778 (1974) (remarks Representative Dennis); id., 41795 Conyers). suggesting might offer amendment add statute's list Dennis establish through "legislative history" relevance Ibid. Cohen, author compromise amendment, relevant, 41794-41795, opposed fear treat dispositive: "[W]e [should] separate independent ground open up Department prosecutor say met take advantage exemptions, I think sufficient basis consideration determine done." Cong.Rec., 41795. 16 Cohen's thereafter adopted modification. Although House inconclusive weight given presence absence defendant, little doubt intended consideration. See, e.g., v. Kramer, 827 1174, 1178 (CA8 1987); Caparella, 716 976, 980 (CA2 1983); Bittle, 226 D.C. 49, 56, 699 1201, 1208 (1983).7 17 confirms consistent statute, intend any type serve presumptive Prior passage sanction generated substantial controversy Congress, proponents uniformly arguing real force, opponents expressing criminals unjustly escape prosecution. generally Partridge, Legislative History Title pp. 31-33 (Federal Judicial Center 1980); F.2d, 978-979 (reviewing history). Eventually, obtain reached incorporated, amendments floor Representatives, eventually became 41774-41775, 41778, 41793-41794 (1974). thrust priority.8 1176; Salgado-Hernandez, 790 1265, 1267 (CA5), cert. denied, 479 964, 107 463, 93 408 (1986); Russo, 741 1264, 1266-1267 (CA11 1984); 980. B Consistent prevailing view, stated standard. 1385. 1179 (reversing abuse discretion); 1267-1268 980-981 (same); (upholding discretion). not, standard required. 19 previously recognized—even another indicated "wide exercising powers," 118 7168 (1972), quoted Albemarle Paper Co. Moody, 422 405, 421, 95 2362, 2373, 45 280 (1975)—that "discretionary choices 'inclination, judgment; sound legal principles.' " 416, S.Ct., 2371, quoting Burr, 25 F.Cas. 30, 35 (No. 14,692d) (CC Va. 1807) (Marshall, C.J.). Thus, calling judicial "hardly means unfettered meaningful standards shielded thorough review." Co., U.S., 2371. 20 Whether depends, course, principles guide exercise. Had merely committed courts, specifying expected "all public private factors," reasonably. Piper Aircraft Reyno, 454 235, 257, 102 252, 266, 70 419 (1981). Appellate determination necessarily limited, priorities. 21 specifically instructed "shall (emphasis added), thereby put place review. role substitute ensure purposes reflects effect. Where, here, declared governed factors, whatever decision, permit Only can limits prescribed Congress. 22 Factual are, entitled deference reversed clear error. Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 105 1504, 84 518 (1985). arrived applying criteria, constitutes fact supported terms statute. Nevertheless, III 23 fully explicate reasons speculate response parties' arguments pro con. Respondent, example, argues may taken into account codefendant sentenced same years' imprisonment, sentencing five imprisonment failure-to-appear charge, possible message" Attorney. Tr. Oral Arg. 29, 32. problems line reasoning, it. To extent codefendant's 3-year sentence implies both "serious," directly odds statement expressly contrary: "there violations [respondent] serious," We reason conclusion regard. Moreover, decided yet entered plea could certain opportunity arise sentencing.9 24 With regard second is, dismissal, find difficult know make "lackadaisical." dispute truly neglectful reasonably issue, gave foundation conclusion. recounted violations, chastised "any show concern," "respon[d] dispatch." bad faith respondent; discover pattern neglect Attorney, evidence Appeals' termed apparent antipathy toward fugitive." 1386; 34-35.10 Any finding, something isolated unwitting altered balance. Instead, explanation factor, tends strongly support prejudice," excuse" conduct. Then appear. prepared go 69th indictment-to-trial prevented going forward timely fashion. separately punished large excluded calculation, correct observes held, remaining clock. 1380-1383.11 That goes be. culpable particular, responsibility meet schedule first instance certainly "circumstances dismissal," weigh favor These nor majority. 26 caused brief, length delay, measure ways closely issue longer greater actual ability prepare restrictions liberty: 27 "[I]nordinate wholly aside merits, 'seriously interfere defendant's liberty, bail disrupt employment, drain financial resources, curtail associations, subject obloquy, create anxiety family friends.' Barker Wingo, 407 514, 537, 92 2182, 2195, 33 (1972) (WHITE, concurring), Marion, 404 307, 320, 455, 30 468 (1971).12 28 here exceeded days, made Indeed, "although insubstantial, great mandate preparation. And, answer valid appear, seem burdens liberty result violation.13 dispositive, 29 rested largely alternative condone behavior, vindicate guarantees encourage "impact administration" self-evident always sends stronger likely induce salutary changes procedures, reducing pretrial delays. Brief 31. Nonetheless, require Dismissal toothless sanction: forces new decides reprosecute, exposes limitations grounds. Given borne burdens, permitted, unlikely. deterrent alone superfluous, reprosecution.14 Perhaps meets eye. cold acquire understanding facts, nuances, attitudes influence judge's decisionmaking, close reluctance. why necessity express guidelines analyzed established evident case. stood delay. At bottom, appears tolerated. present.15 IV 31 Ordinarily, endowed decisions concerning schedules where appropriate. confines narrowly, mandating upon precise limits, criteria What rely unsupported record. conclude Accordingly, 32 ordered. concurring. 34 join agreeing deliberate misconduct, interferes compliance occurs, ordered unless much revealed part. 36 except II-A, devoted establishing, debate House, (1) phrase "among others" refers to, (2) determinative. Both points me utterly text legislation justification resort history. Assume nothing statements harmed granted. Would govern, though provision dominant enough mentioned specifically, just includes othe[r] [factors]," perhaps "facts dismissal"? Or assume opposite, harm all. impairment accused's obviously "other factors" highly permitted reinstitute prosecution? 37 questions no. unambiguous assumed Members Senators they voting for, President approving signed bill, plainly said, few Committee Report, said said. Where says—to take, were, good—we look eminently clear, leave that. 38 adverting produces reach anyway, done. By perpetuating view alter meaning culture made—taken portion alluded opinion: 39 "Mr. DENNIS. 40 41 "I my hand offered, thing, am willing it." 42 equivalency making plausible. possible, easy, sure obtaining face bill Houses vote upon, approves, which, becomes law, people obey. obligation our exegesis fashion fosters democratic process. 43 whom MARSHALL join, dissenting. 44 kind judges decide differently. issues narrowed abandonment two principal advanced Appeals.1 But room disagreement conscientious judges. question, better position wisely personally participated series events culminates understanding, happened, significance events, reconstruct confusing sequence written orders motions. privy reflected record, her impression demeanor attitude2 parties, intentions handling future course proceedings, limited faced appeal fits larger procedural context. convinced Judge sort reasoned second-guess. 46 resulted dangerous criminal promptly returning society suffering punishment wrongs. dealing denying charge.3 count, guilty plea, maximum permissible sentence. severe she imposed paralleled counts. 47 majority, declines important fact, improper charge. disagree. Even presumption innocence believe entirely proper possibility conviction—given occurred shortly tried, involve moderately complicated proof, detention explored connection charges—and mean unpunished. "at sentencing," ante, 338, undoubtedly high probability prove Nor assumption interfered innocence. all, benefit accused 48 posits "highly improper" charges. contrary holds—the considered. defined classes carrying different range. Under felony misdemeanor year's imprisonment. 3150. For differentiated fail severity 5-year range fix While avoid relatively minor merit (particularly cases underlying substantially less years), murder current now imposes four—rather two—possible ranges, varying acutely alleged offense. 3146 ed., 49 addition, impose higher "untested unsubstantiated charges." Ante, n. 9. Yet, planned informing parties intention them proffer evidence. concern expresses today come fruition Not complained unfair treatment, attorney informs "for [his] total conduct." risk treatment presented twice misconduct. 50 agree "indication conclusion" 338. Of importance, ran, comply requiring produced court. 28a, Failure anything, understated. expressed cannot Marshal transferred custody authorities jail papers, 1377, 1387 technically contempt, carelessly public's seeing administered swiftly. precisely address. 51 confronted judge. judge, meaningless unless, statutes run, event itself meaningless. know—especially foreknowledge announced today—that best reversal adopting practice undermine years labor gone enacting construing assumed, set forth sensible withstand 52 boils down criticism adequacy Judge's ruling, 342—343, identifies proceeds apply explaining merit, wrote: 53 "To summarize discussion, inescapable government violate [Speedy Act] (STA). rules allowing ten effectuate district, fourteen excess 3161(c)(1) date Therefore, pursuant 3162(2), Counts point, STA, provides follows: 54 'In justice.' 55 "Regarding serious. However, Despite insistence temporary until 28, [United Service] (USMS) purported ended 22, telling USMS 1985 specific 56 "After hold took six arrange initial appearance month. removal prompt Instead responding dispatch, placed value complying STA. Pursuant STA guarantee. 29a-31a (footnote omitted). 57 enacted previous interpretations Sixth Amendment right drained constitutional "real meaning."4 Judiciary Committees Senate Representatives recognized dismissals prejudice—as rule States—the unlikely accomplish purposes.5 correctly notes, compromised debates. 334 335. compromise, give Rothstein's Cong. Rec. 41777-41778 Reps. Cohen Dennis). sustain concludes, surely "hollow guarantee" described. 58 respectfully dissent. reads: "In entered, commission offense seventy filing (and public) appeared officer pending, whichever last occurs. consents writing tried complaint, consent." 29a; 1383 1987). cf. Rojas-Contreras, 474 231, 234-235, 106 555, 557-558, 88 537 (1985); 239-240, 559-560 (BLACKMUN, judgment). challenged assumption, presumably 3161(h). 3. 3161(h) provides: "The periods computing filed, commence: "(1) resulting proceedings to— "(D) defendant; "(G) proceeding relating transfer Rules Criminal Procedure; "(H) transportation consumed directing transportation, arrival destination presumed unreasonable; "(3)(A) unavailability essential witness." included end dropped; dropped Magistrate warrant; beyond 3161(h)(1)(H) transport Seattle. 28a-29a. subtracting excludable, violated 30-day arrest-to-indictment 3161(b). 31a-32a. asserts "now-outmoded" method calculating time, now-favored method, fugitive, 5-6, 4. Inasmuch raised below pressed 3161(h)(1)(D) 3, supra, capture. 24-26. Because, detailed below, distinction erroneous respect. Although, like fostering process, renders "so obviou[s]," 1, consider. brief debate, cited above, demonstrates uncertain about, repeatedly sought clarification of, for. amended version accepted Senate, unhelpful preamendment Report discussions, most cases. Similarly, statement, process recommending suspension sanction, exception rule," H.R.Rep. 96-390, 8-9 (1979), U.S.Code & Admin.News 1979, 805, 813, override contemporaneous barred. reached, unwilling read preference evinces presumptions. similarly disinclined cases, provide balancing test compromise. important, convicted improper—and presume unbridled discretion—to undue harshness untested 29-30, inquiry conducted, context, Rule Procedure realize tempting wrap "equities" single package intentions, regarded essentially result, approach rights defendants misapply hope errors out end. Contrary dissent's suggestion, 348-349, wisdom Congress' assess penalties depending countenance punish someone severely offense, solely 15-day seemed attributable misunderstanding about responsible lifted, happenstance notification lifting weekend. proposal recapture fled 120-122 1980), excluding "[a]ny 3161(h)(3)(A). articulated judged, declined specify leaving rulemaking activity positioned so. 523, 2188. decreed 3161(c)(1), exceptions delays, fails try frame, define threshold crossed, otherwise, Barker, decline rulemaking. oral argument, concede circumstances, as, systemic problem procedures Attorney's Office, days. 23. matter never whose violated, "prejudice" many forms, case-by-case facts. permits dilatory counsel, prosecutor, monetary fine, 3162(b)(C), practice, 3162(b)(D), report disciplinary committee, 3162(b)(E). sanctions didactic overcome suggest Liberal use direct "send whenever warranted. 336-337, today, 350, "best either form 335, 8. primary submission restarted apprehended. 26a-27a; 1380-1383 Its restarted, 27a-29a; recognizes, 338—339, unaware remained incorrectly suggests He entire ) uncalled constituted allowable 1386 supplied). mere overlooked illustrates danger second-guessing type. notes: finds adoption necessary right. Thus far, Supreme implementation 50(b) Procedure, plans achieving disposition adequate question." 93-1508, (1974), 7401, 7404. American Bar Association H.R. 17409, 93d Cong., 2d Sess., quotes commentary accompanying ABA Standards Relating Trial: 'The effective denial absolute complete discharge. If, again running limitations, Prosecutors deterred delay.' 7430. Zirpoli, spokesman Conference endorsed view. 38. admitting qualification "compelling exceptional foreseen avoided," 754, principle Association, S.Rep. 93-1021, Trial, Hearings 895 Subcommittee Constitutional Rights Judiciary, 92d 1st (1971) (statement Sen. Hart).

Category: 0