United States v. Billy Lee Mitchell

Fifth Circuit

United States v. Billy Lee Mitchell

615 F.2d 1133, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18228

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedApril 25, 1980

Docket79-5555

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 615 F.2d 1133 (United States v. Billy Lee Mitchell) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Billy Lee Mitchell, 615 F.2d 1133, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18228 (5th Cir. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

Mitchell was arrested February 21, 1978, and given a preliminary hearing March 10, 1978. Fourteen and a half months after arrest Mitchell was indicted, with a codefendant, on multiple counts charging that he violated the National Firearms Registration & Transfer Act, by possessing, making and unlawfully transferring firearms (sawed off shotguns). In a bench trial, conducted July 25,1979, the court acquitted Mitchell on several counts on the basis of entrapment, because in these incidents Mitchell had produced unaltered shotguns and government agents had directed him where to saw off the barrels. Mitchell was convicted of incidents in which he had altered the guns ahead of time and delivered them in their illegal form.

The sole issue on appeal is whether Mitchell’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The 15-month delay from arrest to indictment was sufficiently long to inquire into the other Barker factors. U. S. v. Carter, 603 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1979).

The government contends that it was conducting further investigation, as demonstrated by the indictment of the codefendant.

Mitchell says that he raised the speedy trial issue at his preliminary hearing. The hearing has not been transcribed. Five days after he was indicted he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial.

This case can be decided on the fourth prong of Barker v. Wingo, prejudice to the defendant. There was no oppressive pretrial incarceration, and Mitchell has not *1134 contended that he was subjected to anxiety. His sole argument is that his defense was impaired. The major thrust concerns lapses of memory by Government Agent, and prosecution witness, Regentine. But her inability to recall details related to the occurrences for which Mitchell was acquitted. Mitchell also asserts that a material witness was unavailable, but this witness was not shown to have any relation to any incidents except the first, on which Mitchell was acquitted.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

GODBOLD, Circuit Judge:

Mitchell was arrested February 21, 1978, and given a preliminary hearing March 10, 1978. Fourteen and a half months after arrest Mitchell was indicted, with a codefendant, on multiple counts charging that he violated the National Firearms Registration & Transfer Act, by possessing, making and unlawfully transferring firearms (sawed off shotguns). In a bench trial, conducted July 25,1979, the court acquitted Mitchell on several counts on the basis of entrapment, because in these incidents Mitchell had produced unaltered shotguns and government agents had directed him where to saw off the barrels. Mitchell was convicted of incidents in which he had altered the guns ahead of time and delivered them in their illegal form.

The sole issue on appeal is whether Mitchell’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated. Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972). The 15-month delay from arrest to indictment was sufficiently long to inquire into the other Barker factors. U. S. v. Carter, 603 F.2d 1204 (5th Cir. 1979).

The government contends that it was conducting further investigation, as demonstrated by the indictment of the codefendant.

Mitchell says that he raised the speedy trial issue at his preliminary hearing. The hearing has not been transcribed. Five days after he was indicted he filed a motion to dismiss for lack of speedy trial.

This case can be decided on the fourth prong of Barker v. Wingo, prejudice to the defendant. There was no oppressive pretrial incarceration, and Mitchell has not *1134 contended that he was subjected to anxiety. His sole argument is that his defense was impaired. The major thrust concerns lapses of memory by Government Agent, and prosecution witness, Regentine. But her inability to recall details related to the occurrences for which Mitchell was acquitted. Mitchell also asserts that a material witness was unavailable, but this witness was not shown to have any relation to any incidents except the first, on which Mitchell was acquitted.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

615 F.2d 1133, 1980 U.S. App. LEXIS 18228, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-billy-lee-mitchell-ca5-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack