4-Year Delay In Deciding Defendant's New Trial Motion Not a Speedy Trial Violation

U.S. v. Yehling, --- F.3d ----, 2006 WL 2259011(10th Cir. August 08, 2006)

District court’s delay of four years in deciding and denying D’s newly discovered evidence new trial motion, during which time D remained out of custody on personal recognizance, did not deprive the district court of jurisdiction and did not violate his speedy trial due process rights (D did not assert the right during the 4 years, and he did not demonstrate prejudice). Evidence was sufficient to support drug conspiracy conviction, and particularly was sufficient to support the “interdependence” element for the conspiracy–the 8 ball D sold was not an isolated small sale but a sample of the larger goods to be sold.