Brown v. Bobby
656 F.3d 325
6th Cir.2011Background
- Brown was arrested July 6, 2001 for rape; trial delayed repeatedly, not held until Feb. 10, 2003.
- Pretrial delay totaled about 584 days with multiple continuances, including sua sponte delays and a mistrial.
- DNA testing delays and misrepresentations by the state contributed to the delay; sampling and testing occurred late and was not promptly disclosed.
- Brown's counsel withdrew in July 2002; new counsel appointed; interim continuances followed by a November 2002 trial date and a mistrial on Jan. 23, 2003.
- Ohio Court of Appeals applied a 270-day speedy-trial limit and rejected Brown’s federal Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim; Brown sought federal habeas relief.
- District court denied relief under AEDPA; Sixth Circuit affirmed deferential review to state court decision under Harrington v. Richter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AEDPA deferential review applies to Brown's federal speedy-trial claim. | Brown argues the state court did not adjudicate the federal claim on the merits. | State contends the state court adjudicated on the merits and AEDPA applies. | AEDPA deferential review applies; state court adjudication presumed on the merits. |
| Whether Ohio's 270-day rule is consonant with Barker v. Wingo. | Brown asserts federal Barker balancing governs, not a fixed 270-day limit. | Ohio's statute is a reasonable application aligned with Barker. | Ohio's 270-day approach is not contrary to federal law. |
| Whether the Ohio court unreasonably applied Barker factors to Brown's claim. | Brown contends Barker factors were misapplied, yielding no prejudice. | Court properly weighed factors; no unreasonable application. | Court's Barker analysis did not unreasonably apply federal law. |
| Whether Brown suffered actual or presumptive prejudice from pretrial delay. | Nineteen-month delay caused oppressive pretrial incarceration and potential prejudice. | Delay attributable to Brown and limited prejudice; no constitutional violation. | No reversible prejudice established; delay did not violate the Sixth Amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claim; not a fixed day-count rule)
- Harrington v. Richter, 131 S. Ct. 770 (2011) (presumption of adjudication on the merits; AEDPA deference governs unless countered)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) ('contrary to' standard under AEDPA; not merely different reasoning)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (weighs reasons for delay; official negligence may be punished more heavily over time)
- Maples v. Stegall, 427 F.3d 1020 (2005) (presumptive prejudice framework under Barker when warranted)
- United States v. Robinson, 455 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2006) (prejudice and delay attribution considerations in Barker analysis)