Bacause Defendant Was Already Incarcerated, No Relief for Speedy Trial Violation

U.S. v. Hill, 2008 WL 3861201 (8/20/08) (unpub'd) - In a divided decision, the 10th rejects Speedy Trial Act and speedy trial right claims. There is no provision in the Act for dismissal of an indictment when, as occurred here, the government violates its obligations under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(j) to bring a defendant to trial promptly when the defendant is incarcerated on another charge and demands a speedy trial. The 10th does not suggest any remedy for the violation. The 10th essentially finds all four Barker v. Wingo factors in the defendant's favor: the delay was 18 months, the delay was due to the government's negligence, the defendant asserted his speedy trial right, and the defendant ended up in a more severe custody situation because BOP was told a detainer would be filed against him due to the charges. But because the defendant was already in custody anyway, the 10th didn't think the prejudice was substantial enough, and the other factors strong enough, to warrant relief.

In dissent, Judge Holloway disagreed in particular with the majority's rejection of the claim the defendant was deprived of his right to have his sentences be served concurrently by the government's delay. The majority felt the defendant still had the opportunity to get a lower sentence by arguing the concurrence deprivation as a variance ground under Booker. Judge Holloway believed prior pre-Sentencing- Reform-Act cases where a similar argument could have been made precluded that theory. He also disagreed with the majority's belief that, because the defendant was already incarcerated, he had to show substantial prejudice to prevail.