Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Charles Head

December 27, 2011

UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHARLES HEAD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
CHARLES HEAD, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
RICHARD JAMES PULLEY, JR., DEFENDANT.
UNITED STATES, PLAINTIFF,
v.
MARIA DEL ROCIO ARCEO-RANGEL, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.



ORDER

Defendants in each of the above-captioned cases have moved to dismiss their indictments with prejudice based on violations of the Speedy Trial Act of 1974 ("STA" or "the Act"), and specifically the Act's requirement that trial commence within seventy days of return of the indictment or first appearance, not counting properly excluded time. 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161, et seq. The government opposes defendants' motions. The cases were consolidated for hearing at which James Greiner argued for defendants in the Arceo-Rangel and Pulley cases, and Scott Tedmon argued for the defendants in the Head cases, identified above. Assistant United States Attorneys Michael Anderson and Samuel Wong appeared for the government in all of the cases, with Todd Leras also appearing in the Pulley case. After careful consideration, for the reasons set forth below, defendants' motions are DENIED.

I. INTRODUCTION

The underlying cases have been pending for between two and six years. During the pendency of each case, counsel for defendants and the government have requested continuances, at times based on the STA's discretionary time exclusions under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) ("section (h)(7)") and at other times based on other exclusions under other subsections of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h). The question presented to the court by defendants' pending motions is narrow: whether an "ends of justice" continuance under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7) is per se invalid if the presiding judge excludes time by using a shorthand reference to a statutory factor and general language explaining the reasons for exclusion, but does not otherwise recite specific statutory language found in section (h)(7). If such an exclusion is invalid, then defendants argue the appropriate remedy is dismissal with prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND ON SPEEDY TRIAL ACT AND THIS COURT'S LOCAL CODES

A. The Speedy Trial Act

The STA mandates that a criminal defendant proceed to trial within seventy days of being charged or making an initial appearance, whichever occurs later. 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c). Mindful of the frequent impediments to trial commencing within the seventy day period and variations among cases, Congress set forth several mechanisms in the STA for excluding time from the seventy day period. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h); Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489, 497 (2006) ("[T]he Act recognizes that criminal cases vary widely and that there are valid reasons for greater delay in particular cases."). Specific, enumerated exclusions under section 3161(h)(1) are "automatic" and apply "without district court findings." See United States v. Tinklenberg, __U.S.__, 131 S.Ct. 2007, 2013 (2011); Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. __, 130 S.Ct. 1345, 1353 (2010). These enumerated exclusions are triggered by, for example, delays resulting from trial on other charges, appeal, the filing of pretrial motions, and the court's consideration of a proposed plea agreement. See generally 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1). Because these exclusions are automatic and do not require express findings, they can be applied in a post-hoc manner. See United States v. Stubblefield, 643 F.3d 291, 296 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (noting reviewing court could rely on an automatic exclusion not mentioned during trial court proceedings).

By contrast, discretionary exclusions under section 3161(h)(7) require the court to articulate on the record its reasons for finding a continuance is justified. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(A) ("subsection (h)(7)(A)"). "Both the Act and its legislative history establish that no continuance period may be excluded [under § 3161(h)(7)] unless the court makes reasonably explicit findings that demonstrate that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance do, in fact, outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial." United States v. Perez-Revelez, 715 F.2d 1348, 1352 (9th Cir. 1983). Specifically, the statute provides the following framework for granting an "ends of justice" continuance and the periods of time that may qualify for exclusion:

(A) Any period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by any judge on his own motion or at the request of the defendant or his counsel or at the request of the attorney for the Government, if the judge granted such continuance on the basis of his findings that the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a continuance granted by the court in accordance with this paragraph shall be excludable under this subsection unless the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally or in writing, its reasons for finding that the ends of justice served by the granting of such continuance outweigh the best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

(B) The factors, among others, which a judge shall consider in determining whether to grant a continuance under subparagraph

(A) of this paragraph in any case are as follows:

(i) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in the proceeding would be likely to make a continuation of such proceeding impossible, or result in a miscarriage of justice.

(ii) Whether the case is so unusual or so complex, due to the number of defendants, the nature of the prosecution, or the existence of novel questions of fact or law, that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section.

(iii) Whether, in a case in which arrest precedes indictment, delay in the filing of the indictment is caused because the arrest occurs at a time such that it is unreasonable to expect return and filing of the indictment within the period specified in section 3161(b), or because the facts upon which the grand jury must base its determination are unusual or complex.

(iv) Whether the failure to grant such a continuance in a case which, taken as a whole, is not so unusual or so complex as to fall within clause (ii), would deny the defendant reasonable time to obtain counsel, would unreasonably deny the defendant or the Government continuity of counsel, or would deny counsel for the defendant or the attorney for the Government the reasonable time necessary for effective preparation, taking into account the exercise of due diligence.

18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7).*fn1 Section 3161(h)(7) provides courts with necessary "flexibility in accommodating unusual, complex, and difficult cases"; however, in order to prevent the exception from consuming the STA's rule requiring speedy resolution of criminal proceedings, section 3161(h)(7) "counteract[s] substantive openendedness with procedural strictness" by requiring on the record findings justifying an exclusion. Zedner, 547 U.S. at 498-99. In sum, section 3161(h)(7) "permits a district court to grant a continuance and to exclude the resulting delay if the court, after considering certain factors, makes on-the-record findings that the ends of justice served by granting the continuance outweigh the public's and defendant's interests ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.