Court Opinion

ID: 9460407
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 21:49:36.63964+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:36:36.512160
License: Public Domain

MOORE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting):
The majority summarily rejects the findings and conclusions of Judge Bar-tels, who afforded the defendants a lengthy (159 pages of transcript) evi-dentiary hearing to support their claim of denial of a speedy trial. By jury verdict the defendants have been determined to have been guilty. No prejudice has been shown from the delay which might have deprived them of a fair trial.
On the hearing before Judge Bartels, four witnesses were called, three former Assistant United States Attorneys and the law clerk of Judge Rosling (deceased) . After giving careful consideration to the exceptional circumstances which existed during the period in question in the United States Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District, Judge Bar-tels found that the “exceptional circumstances” within the meaning of Rule 5(h) existed. He listed the 41 cases, all criminal with minor exceptions, which Judge Rosling had tried between September 1971 and April 1973, preference being given to jail and older-date eases. Three different United States Attorneys were in office during the period in question. Mass resignations of Assistants resulted. Restaffing required substantial periods of time. Changes of counsel for the defendants caused delays.
In short, in my opinion, it is not for an appellate court, isolated from the practical problems of the prosecutor’s office, to substitute its views for those of the Judge who heard the witnesses and was familiar with the local situation.
I would affirm Judge Bartels.