United States v. Smart

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. TREZITH RASHAD SMART, Defendant.

CRIMINAL No. 4:18cr95 (DJN)

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Newport News Division

November 1, 2021

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DAVID J. NOVAK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter comes before the Court on Defendant's Motions to Dismiss the Indictment (ECF Nos. 143, 156), moving the Court to dismiss the Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 41) for a violation of his right to a Speedy Trial. For the reasons stated below, Defendant's Motions (ECF Nos. 143, 156) are hereby DENIED.

I. BACKGROUND

On December 10, 2018, the Government filed an Indictment (ECF No. 1), charging Defendant with one count of Conspiracy to Distribute Cocaine. On September 16, 2019, Defendant was taken into custody and, on September 27, 2019, Defendant had his initial appearance before the Court. (ECF Nos. 22, 24.) The Court appointed Rodolfo Cejas of the Federal Public Defender's Office to represent Defendant. (ECF No. 24.) The Court set a trial date for December 10, 2019. On October 21, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to withdraw Mr. Cejas due to a conflict. (ECF No. 30.) On October 23, 2019, the Court granted Defendant's Motion to Withdraw, appointed Fernando Groene to represent Defendant and found that the ends of justice required striking the December 10, 2019 trial date. (ECF No. 31.) The Court set a new trial date for January 22, 2020.

On November 11, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Mr Groene as counsel (ECF No. 32), citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. On November 25, 2019, the Court held a hearing on the Motion to Withdraw, granted the Motion to Withdraw, appointed Gregory Matthews to represent Defendant and kept the January 22, 2020 trial date. (ECF Nos 37-38.)

On January 14, 2020, the Government dismissed the Indictment and filed a Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 41), charging Defendant with four counts: Count One, Conspiracy to Distribute and Possess with Intent to Distribute Cocaine Counts Two and Three, Possession with Intent to Distribute and Distribution of Cocaine; and, Count Four, Possession of a Firearm During Drug Trafficking. Specifically, the Government alleges in Count One that Defendant conspired to distribute five or more kilograms of cocaine between 2013 and November 2018. Counts Two and Three charge Defendant with distributing an unspecified amount of cocaine on May 23, 2018, and August 13, 2018, respectively. Finally, Count Four charges Defendant with possessing a firearm on November 1, 2018, in furtherance of his possession with the intent to distribute cocaine.

On January 23, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to substitute counsel, as he had retained James Broccoletti to represent him. (ECF No. 46.) That day, the Court granted the Motion to Substitute Counsel. (ECF No. 49.) On January 29, 2020, Defendant moved for a continuance of the trial to pursue a potential resolution and "to continue investigation into the case in order to properly prepare for trial." (ECF No. 50.) The Court granted Defendant's motion for a continuance and subsequently set the trial for April 14, 2020. (ECF No. 51.)

On March 13, 2020, the Court entered General Order No. 2020-02, suspending all civil and criminal jury trials from March 16 through April 17, 2020, due to COVID-19. Then, on March 24, 2020, the Court entered General Order No. 2020-07, suspending all in-person proceedings, including trials, until May 1, 2020. The Court excluded the suspended time from the Speedy Trial calculations, finding it "necessary to balance the health and safety of jurors and prospective jurors, court employees, litigants (to include criminal defendants), counsel, judges, and the public, with the Constitutional responsibility to continue federal court operations during the COVID-19 outbreak." Id. at 8. Ultimately, due to COVID-19, the Court suspended criminal jury trials until September 14, 2020 (Gen. Order. No. 2020-19) and then again from November 16, 2020 until February 28, 2021. (Gen. Order Nos. 2020-22, 2021-01.) Consequently, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Court could not conduct any trials for over nine months in total.

On April 7, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Determine Competency Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a), asking the Court to hold a hearing to determine the competency of Defendant and to order a psychiatric evaluation of Defendant. (ECF No. 55.) The Court granted Defendant's Motion and ordered that Defendant undergo a psychiatric examination. (ECF No. 57.) The Court specifically excluded that time from the Speedy Trial Act calculations. Id. On June 5, 2020, this action was reassigned from United States District Judge Arenda Wright Allen to the undersigned. (ECF No. 58.) The Court scheduled a competency hearing to occur on August 6, 2020.

Due to complications with COVID-19, FDC-Miami requested an extension to complete the mental evaluation until August 21, 2020. (ECF No. 59.) On September 21, 2021, the Court received the mental health evaluation from Dr. Carmen J. Rodriguez, Psy.D., recommending that the Court find Defendant not competent to stand trial. (ECF No. 62.) After rescheduling the hearing again due to COVID complications, the Court held the competency hearing on October 23, 2020. (ECF No. 69.) The Court found Defendant incompetent to stand trial and ordered that he submit to competency restoration. (ECF No. 68.) The Court explicitly excluded the time of competency restoration from the Speedy Trial Act calculations. Id. at 2.

On July 6, 2021, the Mental Health Department at FMC-Butner submitted a forensic evaluation, opining that Defendant could understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him and assist properly in his own defense. (ECF No. 89.) Importantly, in the forensic evaluation, Dr. Tracy O'Connor Pennuto, J.D., Ph.D., observed that Defendant disagreed with the findings and attempted to manufacture a finding that he lacked competency in an effort to avoid going to trial. (ECF No. 89 at 9-11.) He asked to retake the test and changed his affect. (ECF No. 89 at 10.) Ultimately, Dr. Pennuto "confirmed suspicions about Mr. Smart feigning psychiatric symptoms in an effort to influence the study outcome." (ECF No. 89 at 10.)

During telephone calls with family and friends, Defendant expressed disappointment that he would be found competent. (ECF No. 89 at 12-14.) He told his father "I just talked to the doctor. She found me competent... That's not good, Dad. That's not good ... I'm looking at 30 years in prison, Dad! 30 years." (ECF No. 89 at 13.) His conversations with other family members and friends expressed similar disappointment at the competency finding and the possibility of facing trial. (ECF No. 89 at 13.) Conversely, when Dr. Pennuto told Defendant that he may lack competency after all, he expressed great joy to his family and friends. (ECF No. 89 at 14.)

Similarly, in an addendum submitted to the Court on July 20, 2021, Dr. Pennuto described how Defendant had begun expressing suicidal thoughts as he neared the time when he would have to go to trial. (ECF No. 100 at 2.) However, Dr. Pennuto opined that "Mr. Smart's verbalized thoughts of suicide appear to be related to his stated goal of not going forward with legal proceedings." (ECF No. 100 at 2.)

The Court scheduled a status hearing for July 21, 2021, to determine Defendant's competency to stand trial. On July 15, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Withdraw Mr. Broccoletti as his counsel, again citing a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship. (ECF No. 99.) On July 23, 2021, the Court entered an Order finding Defendant competent to stand trial. (ECF No. 102.) The Court also granted the Motion to Withdraw and appointed Emily Munn to represent Defendant. (ECF No. 103.) Finally, the Court scheduled trial to begin on October 25, 2021. (ECF No. 105.)

On August 23, 2021, Defendant filed a Motion to Suppress (ECF No. 108), asking the Court to exclude certain evidence against him arising out of a traffic stop. On September 13, 2021, Defendant sent a letter to the Court asking to have Ms. Munn withdrawn from the case and to file a motion to suppress based on a separate traffic stop. (ECF Nos. 112, 115-16.) Further, on September 15, 2021, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss based on spoliation of evidence. (ECF No. 118.) The Court scheduled a hearing for Defendant's motions for October 1, 2021. (ECF No. 119.) Thereafter, both Defendant and the Government requested a continuation of the hearing on the Motions to Suppress. (ECF Nos. 123, 127.) The Court continued the hearing as to Defendant's Motions to Suppress, but held the hearing on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Withdraw. (ECF No. 129.) Additionally, the Court continued the hearing on the Motions to Suppress until October 25, 2021, and scheduled trial to begin on November 2, 2021. (ECF No. 129.)

On October 1, 2021, the Court denied Defendant's Motion to Dismiss and granted his Motion to Withdraw. (ECF Nos. 135-36.) The Court further granted Defendant's request to represent himself and appointed Ms. Munn as standby counsel. (ECF No. 135.)

On October 12, 2021, Defendant filed the instant Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 143), arguing that the delay in conducting his trial violates his Sixth Amendment right to a Speedy Trial. On October 18, 2021, Defendant filed a separate Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 156), arguing that the delay violates the Speedy Trial Act. In support, Defendant claims that the Government knew he had the mental competency to stand trial but it nevertheless delayed the trial. (ECF No. 156.) On October 20, 2021, the Government opposed Defendant's Motions, largely on the grounds that the delays occurred as a result of Defendant's actions and COVID-19. (Government's Resp. to Mot....