United States v. Al Phillips, 775 F.2d 1454, 11th Cir. (1985)

775 F.
2d 1454
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.
Al PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 84-5895.
United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.
Nov. 12, 1985.
Stanley Marcus, U.S. Atty., Jon May, David O. Leiwant, Linda Collins
Hertz, Asst. U.S. Attys., Miami, Fla., for plaintiff-appellant.
Jeffrey A. Miller, Bruce Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., for defendantappellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of
Florida.
Before VANCE and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and ATKINS* , District
Judge.
VANCE, Circuit Judge.
This is the second appeal by the government in this case following the district
court's dismissal with prejudice of a multi-count indictment against appellee, Al
Phillips. On the prior appeal we concluded that the district court had
improperly applied a presumption that dismissals under the Speedy Trial Act
should be with prejudice. We directed that on remand it consider the factors
enumerated in 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3162(a)(2) without the influence of the improper
presumption. On remand the district court again considered the matter and
again ruled that the dismissal should be with prejudice. We now conclude that
such ruling constituted an abuse of discretion. We therefore reverse the
judgment of dismissal with prejudice and remand with directions that a
judgment of dismissal without prejudice be entered.
I. Facts and Procedural History
An indictment charging Phillips and others with several offenses involving

marijuana importation was filed but sealed on March 17, 1983. The indictment
was unsealed on March 23, 1983 and on that date Phillips was arrested. He
entered a plea of not guilty. On April 18, 1983 and again on May 17, 1983 the
U.S. Attorney filed Speedy Trial reports in which he stated that trial must begin
on June 13, 1983. The case was set for trial on May 31, 1983, but the trial was
not held on that date. The reason does not appear in the record. At a hearing on
May 25, 1983 the district judge advised counsel that the case was third on the
June 6 calendar but stated, "Looks like this won't be tried at this point." On June
22, 1983 Phillips filed his motion to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act
because more than seventy nonexcludable days had passed. The government's
June 23 response did not oppose dismissal but argued that the dismissal should
be without prejudice.
II. Discussion
3
In its order on remand the district court recognized the correct analytical
framework mandated in United States v. Russo, 741 F.2d 1264 (11th Cir.1984).
It also stated that it must give consideration to the factors enumerated in Barker
v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). Its findings on
remand chronicle the events leading to dismissal, but our understanding of the
court's application of the Russo analysis is not aided by any relevant findings or
explanations except for statements of conclusion. Its reference to Barker is
more problematic since less than eighty 1 days of nonexcludable time had
elapsed when defendant's Speedy Trial motion was filed. No constitutional
ground was stated in defendant's motion, and the delay was insufficient to
implicate constitutional concerns. Under this court's precedents the length of
the delay in this case was too short even to trigger Barker's balancing test or to
require an examination of the other three factors. United States v. OteroHernandez, 743 F.2d 857, 858 n. 3 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Varella,
692 F.2d 1352, 1359 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1210 (1983), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 838, 104 S.Ct. 127, 78 L.Ed.2d 124 (1983).
The district court's order ends with the following statement:
5 following delay in starting a trial beyond the time prescribed by statute, the
If,
prosecution is free to commence prosecution again for the same offense, the right to
speedy trial is largely meaningless.
6
We have difficulty in reconciling this terminal conclusion with the district

court's recitation that its result is reached without application of any
presumption. This conclusion is precisely the reason advanced when the
Speedy Trial Act was under consideration by those who advocated that all
dismissals be with prejudice. That sanction was rejected by the Congress,
however, in favor of the balancing scheme now found in the statute. See United
States v. Caparella, 716 F.2d 976, 978 (2d Cir.1983).
7
Under Russo the following step-by-step consideration of the statutory factors is

determinative:
(1) The charges in this case are serious. They have been found to be serious and
that finding is clearly supported by the record.
(2) The delay was slight--variously calculated at from ten days to three weeks.
There was no demonstrated fault by the government. 2 Indeed, the government
twice filed reports alerting the trial court of the Speedy Trial deadline. The case
was simply not reached on the trial docket, a matter within the primary
responsibility of the court.
10
(3) No findings were made concerning an adverse impact on administration of

the Act and justice in general. The court noted in its findings that defendant
asserted that he is 100% disabled and is awaiting back surgery in the near
future. Phillips was not incarcerated awaiting trial, however, and no record
evidence or finding supports a conclusion that he suffered more harm than
accrued to him by virtue of having been originally charged with crime.
11
The government relies on the seventh circuit's holdings that in the case of a
serious crime, dismissal with prejudice should only be imposed for a serious
delay, United States v. Carreon, 626 F.2d 528, 533 (7th Cir.1980), especially in
the absence of a showing of prejudice. United States v. Hawthorne, 705 F.2d
258, 260 (7th Cir.1983). In effect we adopted the same rule in Russo: "Where
the crime charged is serious, the court should dismiss only for a
correspondingly severe delay." 741 F.2d at 1267. The reasons for application of
this principle are strengthened in this case by the government's apparent
freedom from fault and the lack of any finding of prejudice to Phillips resulting
from the short delay. We conclude that under all of the circumstances disclosed
by the record before us dismissal with prejudice cannot be affirmed.
12
REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.
Honorable C. Clyde Atkins, U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of
Florida, sitting by designation

1
According to defendant's calculations ninety-one days had elapsed
There are findings that the government was delinquent in connection with
certain discovery requirements but no finding that such delinquency was
connected with the Speedy Trial violation. There should be no relationship. The
district court has available adequate sanctions to insure compliance with all
such requirements if they are brought to its attention in a timely manner by
opposing counsel. The possibility of a relationship is foreclosed by defendant's
verification in a memorandum filed in the district court on July 7, 1983 that he
never sought a continuance at any time or for any reason

United States v. Al Phillips, 775 F.2d 1454, 11th Cir. (1985)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

United States v. Al Phillips, 775 F.2d 1454, 11th Cir. (1985)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

775 F.

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,

United States Court of Appeals,

I. Facts and Procedural History

An indictment charging Phillips and others with several offenses involving

The district court's order ends with the following statement:

We have difficulty in reconciling this terminal conclusion with the district

Under Russo the following step-by-step consideration of the statutory factors is

(3) No findings were made concerning an adverse impact on administration of

REVERSED and REMANDED with instructions.

Florida, sitting by designation

According to defendant's calculations ninety-one days had elapsed

You might also like