Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Two-Year Pretrial Detention Not a Speedy Trial Violation

U.S. v. Taylor, 2015 WL 1020605 (3/10/15) (Kan.) (unpub'd) - The 10th affirms the pretrial detention of a cocaine defendant who has been detained for two years. The 10th holds that 18 U.S.C. ยง 3164(b), which requires release after 90 days of detention, was not violated because the Speedy Trial Act excluded from the 90 days the 7-month government-requested, ends-of-justice continuance of the trial date. It was held against Mr Taylor that he waited to file his motion to suppress wiretap evidence from a jurisdiction other than the jurisdiction of the state court that issued the wiretap authorization until the last day he was allowed to. [Is there any other day you can file a motion?] It was okay that the government didn't start looking at what wiretap evidence it could present at trial until after the district court granted Mr. Taylor's suppression motion. It couldn't possibly anticipate the motion or, of all things, the granting of that motion. This was a complicated, multi-defendant case, the 10th says. And besides Mr. Taylor didn't "use all available means to secure an immediate trial," not even saying that he wanted such a thing. Nor was due process violated. The 10th recognized two years was a "lengthy" detention, but most of the delay was attributable to the defense with its "numerous pretrial motions" and "last-minute" filing of a motion to suppress. And there's that complexity and large number of defendants as well.