Speedy Trial

In prosecution on charge of tax evasion and failure to file tax return, defendant waived any statutory speedy trial claim by failing to move (prior to trial) for dismissal of indictment based on said issue. Ct. rejected defendant's contention that his claim can still be reviewed under plain error standard. Moreover, defendant failed to establish any constitutional speedy trial claim where record showed that defendant bore more responsibility for 286-day delay than govt. Remand, though, was required with respect to Dist. Ct.'s imposition of $997,582.19 restitution order, where, even though Dist. Ct. possessed authority to impose restitution for tax offenses as condition of supervised release, record was unclear as to whether Dist. Ct. actually imposed restitution as condition of supervised release, or rather as independent component of actual sentence.

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.

In prosecution on charge of conspiracy to impede IRS and for filing false income tax returns, defendants failed to show that they were denied either statutory or constitutional right to speedy trial even though instant trial did not occur until two years after date of indictments. Dist. Ct. did not err in granting certain continuance requests after finding that said requests served ends of justice. Moreover, Dist. Ct. could properly exclude time associated with co-defendant's motion for bill of particulars even though said motion did not actually cause delay in case. Ct. also rejected defendants' claim that: (1) Dist. Ct. improperly excluded time associated with motion filed by co-defendants' new counsel to familiarize himself with case even though said co-defendant did not personally request said continuance; and (2) instant two-year delay in bringing case to trial violated their constitutional right to speedy trial after Ct. found that defendants mostly caused said delay. Ct. further noted that defendants failed to show prejudice in instant delay. One defendant, though, was entitled to reversal of income tax conviction where prosecutor committed plain error by twice referring to said defendant's invocation of her right to remain silent despite warnings from Dist. Ct. to refrain from doing so.

In prosecution on four counts of bank robbery, Dist. Ct. did not abuse its discretion in dismissing without prejudice said counts due to Speedy Trial Act violation instead of dismissing said counts with prejudice. Although instant delay amounted to 224 non-excludable days, decision to dismiss case without prejudice was supported by fact that: (1) instant charges were serious; (2) much of delay was based on Dist. Ct. consideration of several frivolous motions filed by pro se defendant; and (3) defendant waited to bring delay to court’s attention until time he filed instant motion to dismiss. Ct. also rejected defendant’s claim that his pretrial detention in facility that lacked prison law library violated his 5th Amendment right to meaningful access to courts where defendant declined services of appointed counsel and invoked his right to self-representation throughout time of said detention.