United States v. Williams

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JAMES WILLIAMS, III, Defendant

CRIMINAL ACTION NO. 3:18-CR-153

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

January 27, 2021

(JUDGE MARIANI)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

I. INTRODUCTION

The Motion of Defendant to Dismiss for Violation of the Speedy Trial Act and the United States Constitution (Doc. 59) is pending before Court. With the Motion, Defendant argues that more than seventy non-excludable days have elapsed since May 10, 2018, in violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3161. (Doc. 59 ¶ 14.) He also argues that the period of delay runs afoul of his right to a speedy trial afforded by the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Id. ¶ 15.) Based on the asserted statutory and constitutional violations, Defendant requests that the Court dismiss the action against him with prejudice. (Id. at 5.) The Government concedes that more than seventy non-excludable days have passed and a violation of the Speedy Trial Act has occurred. (Doc. 62 at 6.) However, the Government's position is that the Indictment should be dismissed without prejudice so that Defendant can be re-indicted on the charges pending against him. (Id.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court agrees with the parties that a Speedy Trial Act violation occurred and concludes that Defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has not been violated and the charges against Defendant are properly dismissed without prejudice.

II. BACKGROUND

On May 2, 2018, a Criminal Complaint was filed against James Williams, III ("Defendant"), charging him with Possession with Intent to Distribute a Schedule II Controlled Substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841. (Doc. 1.) Defendant was arrested on May 3, 2018, and Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick held his initial appearance, scheduling a Detention Hearing for May 10, 2018, ordering Defendant detained pending the hearing, and appointing Carl J. Poveromo, Esq., as counsel to represent Defendant. (Docs. 8, 9.)

On May 8, 2018, a federal grand jury returned an eight count indictment, charging Defendant with one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute in excess of 500 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C. § 846; two counts of distribution and possession with intent to distribute cocaine within 1,000 feet of a school in violation of 21 U.S.C. §841(a)(1) and 21 U.S.C.§ 860; one count of possession with intent to distribute 500 grams and more of a mixture containing a detectable amount of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); one count of possession of a firearm in furtherance of drug trafficking in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c); one count of felon in possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1); one count of possession of a firearm with an obliterated serial number in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(k)and 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(1)(B); and one count of possession of a stolen firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). (Doc. 11.)

On May 10, 2018, Defendant entered a plea of "Not Guilty" to the Indictment. (Doc. 14.) On June 8, 2018, Defendant filed a motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions which was granted until August 11, 2018. (Docs. 18, 19.)

On June 21, 2018, defense counsel filed a motion and supporting brief requesting release pending trial. (Docs. 20, 21.) The Court held a hearing on July 16, 2018, and subsequently denied the motion. (Docs. 24-26.) The Court found that Defendant failed to rebut the presumption under 18 U.S.C. § 3142(e)(3)(A) in favor of detention and no conditions or combination of conditions would reasonably assure the safety of the community. (Doc. 25 at 6.)

On August 1, 2018, Defendant filed his second motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions which the Court granted and extended the time until October 1, 2018. (Docs. 27, 28.)

On August 29, 2018, Mr. Poveromo filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, and on September 12, 2018, the Court appointed Robert Levant, Esq., to represent Defedant. (Docs. 20, 31, 32.)

On September 20, 2018, the Defendant filed his third motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions. (Doc. 33.) On September 24, 2018, the Defendant's motion was granted thereby extending the deadline to file pretrial motions to November 26, 2018. (Doc.34.) On November 26, 2018, Defendant filed his fourth motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions. (Doc. 35.) On November 27, 2018, this Court entered an order granting the Defendant's motion for an extension of time to file pretrial motions stating that the pretrial motions were due no later than December 26, 2018, and "[a]bsent exigent circumstances, no further motions for an extension of time to file pretrial motions [would] be granted." (Doc. 36.) On December 26, 2018, no pretrial motions were filed by either party.

On February 20, 2019, Defendant's counsel filed a motion requesting an order be entered allowing for a pre-plea pre-sentence report. (Doc. 38.) The Court granted the motion on February 21, 2019. (Doc. 39.) On April 29, 2019, the Federal Probation Office filed the requested pre-plea pre-sentence report regarding Defendant. (Doc. 40.)

On July 9, 2019, Defendant signed a plea agreement with the government and agreed to enter a guilty plea to counts one and six of the Indictment. (Doc. 42.) On October 29, 2019, the Government filed the fully executed plea agreement.¹ (Doc. 42)

The Court scheduled a change of plea hearing for January 8, 2020. (Doc. 43.) At the hearing, Defendant did not enter a guilty plea and requested a new attorney. (Hr'g Tr. 12: 5-13, 18-19; 16:4-5 (Doc. 61 at 12, 16).) The Court made clear that the plea agreement would remain in place until Defendant had an opportunity to consult with new counsel andDefendant definitively rejected the plea agreement. (Hr'g Tr. 17:3-5 (Doc. 61 at 17).) Defendant confirmed that he understood. (Hr'g Tr. 17:9-10 (Doc. 61 at 17).)

The following day, the Court appointed Williams' third and current defense counsel, Christopher Opiel, Esq. (Doc. 47.) In the brief supporting the pending motion, Mr. Opiel states that

[i]mmediately after being appointed to the case, Undersigned Counsel picked up the case file from the Defendant's prior CJA counsel and began to review the case and the discovery with the Defendant. Undersigned Counsel began to frequently correspond with the Assistant United States Attorney("AUSA") assigned to the case in order to get 'caught up to speed' on the case. Undersigned Counsel believed he was up to speed with the case and began discussing possible resolutions to the case with the AUSA assigned to the case on February 5, 2020.

On April 6, 2020, the Defendant filed a motion for release from custody pursuant to the COVID-19 Pandemic. (Doc. 48). The Defendant's motion for release from custody was denied on May 1, 2020. (Doc. 55).

As Undersigned Counsel continued to discuss the case with the Defendant it seemed apparent that Undersigned Counsel was missing a crucial portion of discovery in Undersigned Counsel's case file.² Undersigned Counsel sent written correspondence to the AUSA assigned to the case on August 12, 2020 regarding whether or not there were additional documents in discovery that Undersigned Counsel did not have in his possession.

On October 2, 2020, Undersigned Counsel again followed up with the AUSA regarding the discovery and Undersigned Counsel clarified that he was in possession of three (3) discovery disks that contained documents bate-stamped 0001-0111. On October 5, 2020, the Government informed Undersigned Counsel that discovery should include documents bate-stamped0001-0130; therefore, Undersigned Counsel was missing approximately nineteen (19) pages of discovery. The Government did make a full copy of the entire discovery available to Undersigned Counsel immediately.

The additional discovery included evidence of search warrant affidavits that included information about multiple confidential witnesses and consensual phone interceptions to which Undersigned Counsel was unaware existed up until October 2020. This additional discovery also required Undersigned Counsel to request additional documentation from the Government, which was promptly provided to Undersigned Counsel.

(Doc. 60 at 4-5.)

On December 23, 2020, Defendant's counsel filed the pending motion and supporting brief. (Docs. 59, 60.) The Government filed its opposition brief on January 6, 2021. (Doc. 62.) With the filing of Defendant's reply brief (Doc. 63) on January 20, 2021, the Motion of Defendant to Dismiss for Violation of the Speedy Trial Act and the United States Constitution (Doc. 59) is fully briefed and ripe for disposition.

III. ANALYSIS

In his initial brief, Defendant raises three main arguments: 1) because more than seventy non-excludable days have elapsed pursuant to the application of 18 U.S.C. § 3161(c)(1), the Speedy Trial Act has been violated; 2) the charges against him must be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3162(a)(2) and the ultimate prejudice suffered; and 3) the charges against him must be dismissed with prejudice due to a violation of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 60 at 6, 8, 15.) Although the Government concedes that a Speedy Trial Act violation has occurred (Doc. 62 at 6), the Court will briefly discuss the contours of the violation before turning to the two issues indispute, i.e., whether dismissal pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act should be with or without prejudice, and whether a Sixth Amendment violation has occurred.

A. Speedy Trial Act Violation

As noted above, the parties agree that a Speedy Trial Act violation has occurred.

The Speedy Trial Act provides as follows:

In any case in which a plea of not guilty is entered, the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or

...