J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:
On January 20, 1975, the United States District Court for the Eastern [644]*644District of New York, John F. Dooling, Judge, dismissed an indictment charging Tommy Roberts with ten counts of possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708.1 The court rested its order on the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. On appeal, the United States challenges the dismissal on two grounds, each of which it contends offers an independent basis for reversal. First, since Roberts agreed shortly after his indictment to plead guilty to reduced charges and therefore had no expectation of actually going to trial, the Constitution’s speedy trial guarantee afforded him no protection. Secondly, assuming arguendo that the Sixth Amendment does ensure a speedy disposition to persons awaiting only the opportunity to plead guilty, its mandate was not violated in this instance. We find neither contention persuasive and affirm the order below.
Roberts was indicted on October 2, 1973, for unlawful possession of stolen mail “on or about” May 1, 1973. Along with related cases involving Alonzo and Henry Smith, Roberts’ case was assigned to United States District Judge Anthony J. Travia of the Eastern District of New York. Although the defendant pleaded not guilty when arraigned before Judge Travia on October 15, he had by then concluded an arrangement with the government to plead guilty to a misdemeanor information. The plea of not guilty at the arraignment is explained by the parties’ agreement to defer entry of the guilty plea until the Smith cases were resolved — a resolution not realized until February 14, 1975. About the time of Roberts’ arraignment, Judge Travia embarked upon a trial which required the court’s almost undivided attention for the next nine months. The Smith cases thus remained quiescent and, as a result, Roberts’ entry of a guilty plea was held in abeyance. During that nine-month period, moreover — specifically, on May 21, 1974 — Roberts’ 26th birthday passed and with it expired the defendant’s eligibility for the advantages (primarily, probation and the opportunity to have the conviction erased from his record) of a sentence imposed on him as a young adult offender under the Youth Corrections Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4209, 5010(a), 5021.2 Upon conclusion of the [645]*645lengthy trial, Judge Travia left for an extended vacation and, not long after, resigned from the bench. Both the defendant’s and the Smiths’ cases were then transferred to Judge Dooling, who on November 13, 1974, called a pretrial conference in Roberts’ case to set a date for trial. At the conference, the defendant raised for the first time his right to a speedy trial. One month later, Roberts formally moved to dismiss the indictment for undue delay and, after argument by counsel for both sides and an offer by the government to proceed with the plea bargain despite the still-unresolved status of the Smith cases, Judge Dooling granted the motion on Sixth Amendment grounds.3 Several weeks afterward, the government and the Smiths successfully concluded months of negotiation for a plea bargain covering postal offense charges related to Roberts’ case and possible future indictments for conspiracy to obtain by fraud federally-insured mortgage loans (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1010).
I.
The appellant’s attempt to limit the protection of the speedy trial clause to defendants awaiting trial adopts a too literal reading of that clause. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial gives recognition to an accused’s significant stakes — psychological, physical and financial — in the prompt termination of a proceeding which may ultimately deprive him of life, liberty or property. In Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 486, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957), the Supreme Court was willing to assume arguendo “that sentence is part of the trial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.” Since the case currently under review had not, at the time of Roberts’ motion to dismiss, even reached the stage at which a defendant must decide whether to plead guilty or proceed forthwith to trial, we need not construe “trial” as broadly as Pollard intimates may be appropriate. We hold, therefore, that the speedy trial clause applies with full force at least until a guilty plea has been entered by the defendant and accepted by the court.4
II.
In challenging the district court’s conclusion that Roberts was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the government does not contend that Judge Dooling applied an incorrect standard. And obviously he did not, for in his memorandum opinion dated January 20, 1975,5 he adhered to the direction of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), to assess “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” The government takes issue, then, with the district court’s understanding of the application of this multi-factor balancing test to the circumstances of Roberts’ case. Close attention to the form assumed by these four variables in the context of Roberts’ case, however, fully supports Judge Dooling’s decision that the indictment must be dismissed.6
[646]*646At the time of Roberts’ motion to dismiss, the post-indictment delay was considerably shorter than others countenanced by this court. See, e. g., United States v. Fasanaro, 471 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (over four years); United States v. Saglimbene, 471 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2146, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973) (six years). On the other hand, as the Court made clear in Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. 514 at 530-31, 92 S.Ct. 2182 at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 a delay not patently unreasonable in length may nonetheless be intolerably long in light of “the peculiar circumstances of the case.” And a peculiarity of the instant case highly relevant in this regard was the government’s ability to predict with great certainty that Roberts would be seriously prejudiced in the event that he was not permitted to plead guilty prior to his 26th birthday. After that date, Roberts lost his right, see Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 443-44, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974), to be considered by the sentencing judge for youthful offender treatment. Significantly, loss of the right to be considered for youthful offender treatment amounted in this case to little less than loss of the right to receive
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
J. JOSEPH SMITH, Circuit Judge:
On January 20, 1975, the United States District Court for the Eastern [644]*644District of New York, John F. Dooling, Judge, dismissed an indictment charging Tommy Roberts with ten counts of possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1708.1 The court rested its order on the defendant’s constitutional right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment. On appeal, the United States challenges the dismissal on two grounds, each of which it contends offers an independent basis for reversal. First, since Roberts agreed shortly after his indictment to plead guilty to reduced charges and therefore had no expectation of actually going to trial, the Constitution’s speedy trial guarantee afforded him no protection. Secondly, assuming arguendo that the Sixth Amendment does ensure a speedy disposition to persons awaiting only the opportunity to plead guilty, its mandate was not violated in this instance. We find neither contention persuasive and affirm the order below.
Roberts was indicted on October 2, 1973, for unlawful possession of stolen mail “on or about” May 1, 1973. Along with related cases involving Alonzo and Henry Smith, Roberts’ case was assigned to United States District Judge Anthony J. Travia of the Eastern District of New York. Although the defendant pleaded not guilty when arraigned before Judge Travia on October 15, he had by then concluded an arrangement with the government to plead guilty to a misdemeanor information. The plea of not guilty at the arraignment is explained by the parties’ agreement to defer entry of the guilty plea until the Smith cases were resolved — a resolution not realized until February 14, 1975. About the time of Roberts’ arraignment, Judge Travia embarked upon a trial which required the court’s almost undivided attention for the next nine months. The Smith cases thus remained quiescent and, as a result, Roberts’ entry of a guilty plea was held in abeyance. During that nine-month period, moreover — specifically, on May 21, 1974 — Roberts’ 26th birthday passed and with it expired the defendant’s eligibility for the advantages (primarily, probation and the opportunity to have the conviction erased from his record) of a sentence imposed on him as a young adult offender under the Youth Corrections Act. 18 U.S.C. §§ 4209, 5010(a), 5021.2 Upon conclusion of the [645]*645lengthy trial, Judge Travia left for an extended vacation and, not long after, resigned from the bench. Both the defendant’s and the Smiths’ cases were then transferred to Judge Dooling, who on November 13, 1974, called a pretrial conference in Roberts’ case to set a date for trial. At the conference, the defendant raised for the first time his right to a speedy trial. One month later, Roberts formally moved to dismiss the indictment for undue delay and, after argument by counsel for both sides and an offer by the government to proceed with the plea bargain despite the still-unresolved status of the Smith cases, Judge Dooling granted the motion on Sixth Amendment grounds.3 Several weeks afterward, the government and the Smiths successfully concluded months of negotiation for a plea bargain covering postal offense charges related to Roberts’ case and possible future indictments for conspiracy to obtain by fraud federally-insured mortgage loans (see 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1010).
I.
The appellant’s attempt to limit the protection of the speedy trial clause to defendants awaiting trial adopts a too literal reading of that clause. The Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of a speedy trial gives recognition to an accused’s significant stakes — psychological, physical and financial — in the prompt termination of a proceeding which may ultimately deprive him of life, liberty or property. In Pollard v. United States, 352 U.S. 354, 361, 77 S.Ct. 481, 486, 1 L.Ed.2d 393 (1957), the Supreme Court was willing to assume arguendo “that sentence is part of the trial for purposes of the Sixth Amendment.” Since the case currently under review had not, at the time of Roberts’ motion to dismiss, even reached the stage at which a defendant must decide whether to plead guilty or proceed forthwith to trial, we need not construe “trial” as broadly as Pollard intimates may be appropriate. We hold, therefore, that the speedy trial clause applies with full force at least until a guilty plea has been entered by the defendant and accepted by the court.4
II.
In challenging the district court’s conclusion that Roberts was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial, the government does not contend that Judge Dooling applied an incorrect standard. And obviously he did not, for in his memorandum opinion dated January 20, 1975,5 he adhered to the direction of Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 (1972), to assess “[l]ength of delay, the reason for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right, and prejudice to the defendant.” The government takes issue, then, with the district court’s understanding of the application of this multi-factor balancing test to the circumstances of Roberts’ case. Close attention to the form assumed by these four variables in the context of Roberts’ case, however, fully supports Judge Dooling’s decision that the indictment must be dismissed.6
[646]*646At the time of Roberts’ motion to dismiss, the post-indictment delay was considerably shorter than others countenanced by this court. See, e. g., United States v. Fasanaro, 471 F.2d 717 (2d Cir. 1973) (per curiam) (over four years); United States v. Saglimbene, 471 F.2d 16 (2d Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 411 U.S. 966, 93 S.Ct. 2146, 36 L.Ed.2d 686 (1973) (six years). On the other hand, as the Court made clear in Barker v. Wingo, supra, 407 U.S. 514 at 530-31, 92 S.Ct. 2182 at 2192, 33 L.Ed.2d 101 a delay not patently unreasonable in length may nonetheless be intolerably long in light of “the peculiar circumstances of the case.” And a peculiarity of the instant case highly relevant in this regard was the government’s ability to predict with great certainty that Roberts would be seriously prejudiced in the event that he was not permitted to plead guilty prior to his 26th birthday. After that date, Roberts lost his right, see Dorszynski v. United States, 418 U.S. 424, 443-44, 94 S.Ct. 3042, 41 L.Ed.2d 855 (1974), to be considered by the sentencing judge for youthful offender treatment. Significantly, loss of the right to be considered for youthful offender treatment amounted in this case to little less than loss of the right to receive such treatment: Since this was Roberts’ first offense and he had demonstrated a willingness to cooperate with the prosecution, there was, in the district court’s view, a “real and substantial” possibility that he would receive the notable advantages of youthful offender treatment.7 Due regard for the district court’s closer contact than ours to the facts and personalities in this case as well as its greater familiarity yvith the sentencing practices in its district requires that we defer to Judge Dooling’s prediction of probable sentencing treatment.
In terms of the Barker v. Wingo balance, the importance of accepting the district court’s view on this matter is two-fold. Most obviously, it means that the prejudice factor is substantial: As a result of the delay, Roberts lost an excellent opportunity to be given, upon pleading guilty, a youthful offender probationary sentence and the chance to have the conviction expunged from his record. Deference to the district court’s view on Roberts’ probable qualification for youthful offender status, furthermore, also has the effect of making the length of delay factor a weighty one in Roberts’ favor: To allow the more than seven months between Roberts’ indictment and his birthday to pass was egregious delay in light of the virtual certainty that serious harm would befall Roberts as a consequence.
The reason for delay is also a factor favoring dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. On one level, the delay may be seen simply as a byproduct of Judge Travia’s calendar and his decision to resign from the bench. Though institutional delays are chargeable to the government, see United States v. West, 504 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C.Cir. 1974), they are not appropriately treated with the same severity as delays procured by the prosecution. To assimilate the delay experienced by Roberts to neutral, institutional causes, then, limits the force of his speedy trial claim. Further analysis indicates, however, that this characterization of the delay would limit the defendant’s claim quite unjustly. For, as the district court found,8 the government plainly had an interest in tardy disposition of Roberts’ case and played an important role in procuring the delay experienced by the defendant.
Thus, Roberts was ready to plead guilty back in October, 1973. The prosecution did not permit him to do so, however, because it wanted to make certain that Roberts kept his part of the plea bargain (testifying, if necessary, against the Smiths) before it delivered the consideration promised on its part (replacing the felony indictment with a misdemean- or information). The threat of prosecution on a still alive felony indictment [647]*647was therefore a valuable weapon to ensure that Roberts would testify as promised, and the government was not about to relinquish that coercive device by giving Roberts his anticipated fruits from the bargain prematurely. Understandably, then, while the Smith cases remained untried, the government did not attempt to get Judge Travia’s attention long enough for Roberts to plead guilty.
The government’s responsibility for the delay in Roberts’ case, however, extends even further, for the prosecution made no effort whatsoever to accelerate trial of the Smith cases. Though not himself available to try the cases, Judge Travia may have, if asked, transferred the cases to another judge in the Eastern District; indeed, during the course of his lengthy trial, Judge Travia granted several such requests. But since the government was hoping to work out a plea bargain with the Smiths on existing and prospective indictments not all related to the charges against Roberts, an accelerated trial date was obviously the last thing it wanted. The delay in trying the Smiths — and the resultant delay in Roberts’ case — was thus not of the government’s active making but it was very much dependent on the government’s studied inactivity insofar as moving the Smith cases toward trial.
We find, then, that the reason for delay in Roberts’ case is a factor in the Barker v. Wingo calculus to be counted heavily against the government. In making this assessment, we do not mean to fault generally plea bargains in which a defendant’s faithful performance of his part of the agreement is made a condition precedent to the prosecution’s consent, at the time of pleading, to a reduction in the charges. We do, however, reject any notion that a defendant in effect waives his right to a speedy trial by consenting to such an agreement. Thus, if the government wishes to bargain for this condition, it may but it should do so mindful of the risks which it thereby assumes of dismissed indictments for unconstitutional delay.
The defendant’s assertion of his right, the final factor to be considered, is the only one of the four variables elucidated in Barker v. Wingo which militates against the conclusion that Roberts’ constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated. Rather than press for a disposition of his case prior to his 26th birthday, Roberts silently let that date pass; when he claimed for the first time (in November, 1974) that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial, the prejudice of which he now complains had long since been realized. As the Court indicated in Barker v. Wingo, however, a defendant’s failure to demand an earlier disposition of his case does not mean that he has waived his right to a speedy trial during the period of his silence. 407 U.S. 514 at 528, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101. Instead of applying a per se demand-waiver rule, courts are obligated to employ “judicial discretion based on the circumstances,” id. at 529, 92 S.Ct. at 2191, in determining the appropriate weight to be given this demand factor in the specific case.
Accordingly, in the case under review, two circumstances mitigating the seriousness of Roberts’ inaction must be taken into account. First of all, in view of the defendant’s almost certain personal ignorance of the implications of delay beyond his 26th birthday, the significance of the demand factor in the Barker v. Wingo balancing test is notably less than usual. This inference flows from the Supreme Court’s explanation in Barker v. Wingo, id. at 531—32, 92 S.Ct. 2182, of the reason why a defendant’s assertion of his speedy trial right is a particularly important consideration: because it casts light on the seriousness of the prejudice caused by the delay. “The more serious the deprivation, the more likely a defendant is to complain.” Id. at 531, 92 S.Ct. at 2192. Thus, since any nexus between assertion of the right and prejudice suffered is belied in the instant case by Roberts’ probable obliviousness to the legal consequences of delay beyond his birthday, the usual justification for assigning great, and perhaps decisive, [648]*648weight to this single factor is plainly missing. As a result, Roberts’ failure to demand, an earlier disposition of his case necessarily tends to negative his speedy trial claim only slightly.
Also minimizing the significance of Roberts’ inaction to the end-result of the balancing test is his confrontation, throughout the period of delay, with a major practical obstacle to raising his speedy trial rights. As Judge Dooling pointed out, a demand for prompter disposition “might have invited the risk that the Government would insist on a felony plea or a transfer of the case to another judge for speedy trial on the ten felony charges”9—obviously not a prospect conducive to vigorous assertion of constitutional rights. Once again, moreover, the district court’s finding is of a nature which calls for considerable deference on our part in light of the lower court’s closer contact with the parties and its greater familiarity with practices in its district.
We accept, then, the district court’s conclusion that the defendant was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The speedy trial clause is plainly applicable although the defendant contemplated not a trial but instead a plea of guilty. In terms of the multi-factor balancing test prescribed by the Supreme Court in Barker v. Wingo, assessment of three of the factors in the context of this case strongly indicates that Roberts was denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; consideration of the fourth factor, the defendant’s assertion of the right, only mildly and inconsequentially qualifies this conclusion. The district court’s order dismissing the indictment for reasons of unconstitutional delay must therefore be affirmed.
Affirmed.