509 F.Supp.3d 1145
D.S.D.2020Background
- Petitioner Matthew Kurtenbach, a pretrial detainee in Codington County, SD, faces numerous state charges, principally felony aggravated domestic assault (#559) and a re‑indicted forgery case (#543) that was previously filed as #610.
- Arrested May 2019; while in federal custody on a supervised‑release revocation he repeatedly (25+ times) demanded speedy trials in state cases and consented to telephonic appearances; cases were set for January 2020 but not tried.
- The state court delayed ruling on petitioner’s motions and did not address his Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial claims in its March 11, 2020 order; the South Dakota Supreme Court suspended the 180‑day state speedy‑trial rule during the COVID‑19 judicial emergency.
- Petitioner filed federal habeas petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 seeking relief for alleged Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial violations; an earlier petition was dismissed without prejudice under Younger abstention when state court had not yet ruled.
- District court found the cumulative delay (over 18 months), petitioner’s repeated assertions of the right, and prejudice sufficient under Barker v. Wingo to establish a Sixth Amendment violation, rejected COVID‑19 and petitioner’s custody status as justifications for the full extent of the delay, denied respondent’s motion to dismiss, and ordered jury trials in #559 and #543 by January 15, 2021.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Availability of federal habeas under §2241 to challenge pretrial state detention for Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial violation | Kurtenbach: §2241 permits challenge to pretrial detention for federal constitutional violations | Respondent: Habeas under §2254 is proper; cannot use federal habeas to enforce state speedy‑trial statute | Court: §2241 is available to challenge state pretrial detention for federal constitutional violations; petitioner may proceed |
| Exhaustion / Younger abstention | Kurtenbach: State court’s repeated failure to address his federal speedy‑trial claims makes further exhaustion futile | Respondent: State courts have not had the opportunity; Younger abstention and exhaustion required | Court: Dismissal on Younger grounds/failure to exhaust inappropriate because state court has repeatedly failed to address federal claims; exhaustion would be futile |
| Whether delay violated Sixth Amendment (Barker factors) | Kurtenbach: >18 months delay, repeated demands, prejudice to defense; COVID and federal custody do not justify delay | Respondent: Delay attributable to petitioner’s federal custody, his bond violations, and COVID‑19 public‑health measures | Court: Barker factors favor petitioner; delay unreasonable and violated Sixth Amendment; COVID did not justify the extent of delay |
| Appropriate remedy | Kurtenbach: Seeks enforcement of speedy‑trial right (release if necessary) | Respondent: Severe remedy (dismissal) unnecessary; allow state process to proceed | Court: Denied dismissal motion; ordered trials in #559 and #543 by Jan 15, 2021 or petition will be granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (speedy‑trial right applies to the States)
- Smith v. Hooey, 393 U.S. 374 (1969) (state must diligently bring an accused to trial upon demand)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four‑factor balancing test for speedy‑trial claims)
- Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 (1971) (federal courts should abstain from interfering with pending state criminal proceedings in certain circumstances)
- Poe v. Caspari, 39 F.3d 204 (8th Cir. 1994) (violation of state speedy‑trial law alone is not a federal habeas claim)
- Stewart v. Nix, 972 F.2d 967 (8th Cir. 1992) (applies Barker framework)
- Wingo v. Ciccone, 507 F.2d 354 (8th Cir. 1974) (remedies for speedy‑trial violations and considerations for dismissal)
- Carson v. Simon, 978 F.3d 1051 (8th Cir. 2020) (no pandemic exception to constitutional rights)