Ryan Brown v. Kenneth Romanowski
845 F.3d 703
| 6th Cir. | 2017Background
- Brown was involved in four controlled cocaine buys (Sept 2005–Jan 2006) arranged through informant Jawad Mirza; police recorded and supervised the buys but the audio tapes were later lost. Brown gave a written confession after Miranda warnings and was released; a complaint and warrant issued in early 2006 but Brown was unaware until his Sept 24, 2007 arraignment on unrelated bench-warrant arrest.
- Trial occurred Feb 15–16, 2008; Brown was convicted on four delivery counts and sentenced to concurrent multi-year terms. He appealed unsuccessfully in state court and pursued post-conviction motions alleging lost evidence, involuntary confession, speedy-trial violations, and ineffective assistance.
- The state trial court denied Brown’s post-conviction motion on procedural grounds for the original claims and did not address claims in his amended motion; the federal district court granted a COA on two timing claims but Brown pursued only the Sixth Amendment First-Arrest-to-Trial Delay claim on appeal.
- The Sixth Circuit assumed (for analysis) the speedy-trial clock began at the Jan 10, 2006 arrest, yielding a ~25-month delay to trial; it applied Barker v. Wingo’s four-factor test (length, reason, assertion, prejudice).
- Court found: length was long enough to trigger Barker; reason weighed in Brown’s favor but was only negligent (not bad faith); Brown’s late assertion (post-conviction) did not weigh strongly for him but competency concerns limited the negative effect; prejudice (the most important factor) was not shown—Brown’s confession and strong corroborating testimony overcame loss of tapes and minor witness memory lapses.
- Court declined to consider freestanding ineffective-assistance claims tied to speedy-trial issues because the COA was limited to the delay claims; judgment denying habeas relief was affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Trigger date for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right | Brown: right attached at Jan 10, 2006 arrest (first arrest) so ~25-month delay to trial | State: right did not attach until Sept 24, 2007 arraignment (Brown unaware earlier) so only ~5-month delay | Court assumed Jan 10, 2006 (gave Brown benefit) and proceeded under Barker but ultimately found no violation |
| Length/reason for delay under Barker | Brown: the 25-month delay and government negligence justify strong weight against State | State: delay was at most negligent, possibly explained by attempts to pursue supplier/cooperation; not bad faith | Court: length triggered Barker; reason favored Brown but characterized as negligence, not gross or bad faith |
| Assertion of speedy-trial right | Brown: could not assert earlier because unaware; later counsel allegedly ineffective | State: Brown failed to demand speedy trial after arraignment | Court: factored Brown’s lack of early knowledge and possible counsel issues; refusal to assert after arraignment weighed slightly against Brown but was not dispositive |
| Prejudice from delay (lost tapes & witness memory) | Brown: lost audio tapes and dimmed officer memories caused actual prejudice to defense and warrant presumption of prejudice | State: Brown confessed and surveillance/official testimony strongly corroborated sales; missing tapes and partial memory lapses did not cause substantial prejudice | Court: no substantial or presumptive prejudice—confession and corroborating testimony overcame lost tapes; delay did not warrant dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishing four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (discussing presumptive prejudice from excessive delay and impairment of defense)
- Marion v. United States, 404 U.S. 307 (speedy-trial right attaches when defendant is "accused"; arrest or indictment generally trigger)
- Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (dismissal is sole remedy for a speedy-trial violation)
- United States v. Robinson, 455 F.3d 602 (6th Cir.) (threshold rule on delay length and related analysis)
- United States v. Ferreira, 665 F.3d 701 (6th Cir.) (government negligence over prolonged delay can support presumption of prejudice)