U.S. v. O’Connor

In prosecution on wire fraud charge, Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss based on her claim that instant 1,229-day delay in bringing her case to trial violated Speedy Trial Act, as well as her 6th Amendment right to speedy trial. Defendant only cited one continuance/exclusion of time in her motion to dismiss, and thus at best could seek only plain error review as to any other exclusions. Moreover, record supported Dist. Ct.'s finding that no Speedy Trial Act violation occurred where all but one "end-of-justice" exclusions were adequately supported by findings in record based on complexity of case, magnitude of discovery and attorneys' schedules. Fact that Dist. Ct. initially found that one delay was erroneously attributed as "end-of-justice" exclusion did not require different result where Dist. Ct. orally explained at time continuance was granted that said delay was attributable to medical emergency of essential govt. witness. Also, while Dist. Ct. failed to make required findings with respect to one delay attributable to preparation of pre-trial motion, instant delays chargeable to govt. were still less than 70 days allowed under Act. Ct. also found no 6th Amendment speedy trial violation where defendant was responsible for many of pre-trial continuances, and where she failed to establish any prejudice resulting from instant delay.