Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . On May 22, 2017, in concurrent civil matter CV 16-2596, this Court granted a motion filed by defendant Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros ("defendant") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, vacated defendant's convictions, and ordered the government to indicate whether it would proceed to new trial in this matter. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties in conjunction with the 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, th
Summary: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT JOHN A. KRONSTADT , District Judge . On May 22, 2017, in concurrent civil matter CV 16-2596, this Court granted a motion filed by defendant Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros ("defendant") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2255, vacated defendant's convictions, and ordered the government to indicate whether it would proceed to new trial in this matter. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties in conjunction with the 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion, the..
More
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT
JOHN A. KRONSTADT, District Judge.
On May 22, 2017, in concurrent civil matter CV 16-2596, this Court granted a motion filed by defendant Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros ("defendant") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, vacated defendant's convictions, and ordered the government to indicate whether it would proceed to new trial in this matter. Based on the pleadings filed by the parties in conjunction with the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, the Court has familiarity with the underlying facts in this case.
In a separate filing, the government indicated that it wished to conduct mitochondrial DNA tests of forensic evidence seized in the original investigation, and asked for further time to report to the Court on its intentions with regard to a new trial. The government indicated that it was engaged in a process of examining evidence for mitochondrial DNA for a period of time pre-dating the Court's order. The request for further time was not opposed by defendant. On July 5, 2017, the Court granted the government's request for further time to make its statement to the Court and specifically ordered the government to respond by August 29, 2017.
The Speedy Trial Act, and specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e), states in relevant part:
If the defendant is to be tried again following an appeal or collateral attack, the trial shall commence within seventy days from the date the action occasioning the retrial becomes final, except that the court retrying the case may extend the period of retrial not to exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date occasioning the retrial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or other factors resulting from passage of time shall make trial within seventy days impractical.
In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6) states generally, upon a motion by the government, that a period of delay of trial is reasonable if the ends of justice served by taking such action outweigh the best interest of public and the defendant in a speedy trial. Factors for the Court to evaluate include whether "the case is so unusual or so complex due to . . . the existence of novel questions of fact . . . that it is unreasonable to expect adequate preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within the time limits established by this section." 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).
The Court, therefore, makes the following findings:
The period of time from May 22, 2017 through August 29, 2017, is "excludable time" within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, and 18 U.S.C. § 3161 et seq. Specifically, the Court finds that as a result of the examination of forensic evidence for the presence of mitochondrial DNA by the government, and the complexity of the underlying facts in this case, it is unreasonable for the parties to proceed to trial within the seventy-day period set-forth in the Speedy Trial Act. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e), because this case arose from facts in 1986, and scientific techniques have advanced since that time, the need to conduct further scientific examination of forensic evidence is a factor for delay beyond the statutory seventy-day time period. In addition, the Court finds that this case is "so unusual" and "so complex" both factually and legally that it is unreasonable to expect trial to proceed within the time limits established in 18 U.S.C. § 3161, and for these reasons, the time period of May 22, 2017 through August 29, 2017 is excludable.
As previously stated, by August 29, 2017, the government shall report the findings of mitochondrial DNA analysis of hair evidence and state whether it intends to proceed to jury trial in the matter, and if the government intends to proceed to trial, the particular charges on which the government intends to proceed.
SO ORDERED.
