In United States v. Young, No. 09-5823 (Sept. 21, 2011), the United States Court of Appeals rejected the Michigan defendant’s constitutional speedy trial argument that “the delay of eleven years between his indictment and his conviction is presumptively prejudicial,” and also that it “caused him actual prejudice in the form of lost witnesses, lost memories, and lost records.” Despite the arguments made by his Michigan Appellate Attorney, the court ruled that unusually long delay stemmed in part from the fact that “the case was extraordinary in its complexity and otherwise.” It “involved twenty-four other defendants and numerous motions to continue, join, sever, and dismiss.”
The court noted that the defendant’s highly aggressive appellate attorney engaged in a “vigorous motions practice,” sought several continuances of his own, and “never opposed a requested continuance from any party . . . .” Further, there had been two interlocutory appeals. Albeit while acknowledging the “unusual facts—especially the eleven-year delay,” the court found that “Young was either responsible for or a participant in most of the delay, and he is unable to show that his defense was prejudiced . . . . Ultimately, while the length of Young’s case may be atypical, it is not unconstitutional.”
Cases like this are tragic in the sense that lower courts and Michigan courts will use it to justify the violation of countless defendants speedy trial rights.
Mr. Loren Dickstein, Esq.
Michigan Criminal Defense Attorney
LEWIS & DICKSTEIN, P.L.L.C.
2000 Town Center, Ste. 2350
Southfield, MI 48075
(248) 263-6800 - Fax: (248) 357-1371
