236 A.3d 720
Md. Ct. Spec. App.2020Background
- July 11, 2017: Jennifer Johnson died of a drug overdose involving carfentanil/heroin; investigation connected her to Amy Bormel and Raghbir Singh.
- June 12, 2017: Controlled purchase from Bormel; police arrested Bormel and Singh; initial district charges (conspiracy/distribution) were later forwarded to the circuit court.
- Feb 2018: Evidence from Singh’s arrest (including his statement) was suppressed; State entered nolle prosequi on the pending charges from the controlled-buy prosecution.
- March 29, 2018: Grand jury returned an indictment against Singh charging murder/manslaughter, heroin distribution, and conspiracy (original indictment).
- Dec 20, 2018: Grand jury returned a superseding indictment adding carfentanil distribution and related conspiracy counts; State later nolle prossed the original indictment on Jan 3, 2019.
- Feb–May 2019: Singh moved to dismiss for violation of his speedy-trial right; the circuit court measured delay from the superseding indictment and denied the motion; Singh entered a conditional guilty plea reserving the speedy-trial issue and appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Singh's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Start date for charges present in both indictments | Clock began on March 29, 2018 (original indictment) | Clock begins on Dec 20, 2018 (superseding indictment) | Court: Original indictment (Mar 29, 2018) triggered speedy-trial rights for counts repeated in superseding indictment; delay to May 13, 2019 (410 days) is presumptively prejudicial and requires Barker analysis. |
| Start date for charges added in superseding indictment | Added counts should still start at Mar 29, 2018 | Added counts start at Dec 20, 2018 | Court: Remanded to determine whether State could have, with diligence, charged the carfentanil counts on Mar 29; if yes, start date is Mar 29; if no, start date is Dec 20. |
| Whether State acted in bad faith to evade speedy-trial rights by superseding/dismissing | Superseding indictment was used to penalize Singh for rejecting plea and to reset the clock | Superseding indictment was filed in good faith to reflect new evidence (Bormel’s expected cooperation) | Court found no clear record ruling on bad faith and remanded for factual findings and Barker balancing. |
| Whether delay should include initial June 12, 2017 arrest | Clock should run from arrest (June 12, 2017) | Clock should not run from that arrest because charges then related to different conduct and were dismissed in good faith | Court: June 12, 2017 arrest not the start for murder-related charges; earlier proceedings ended in good-faith dismissal and do not count. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (established four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay must be presumptively prejudicial to trigger full Barker inquiry)
- United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (speedy-trial protections cease after good-faith dismissal; time not counted when no charges pending)
- State v. Henson, 335 Md. 326 (Maryland rule that good-faith termination excludes pre-dismissal time; recharging restarts clock)
- Glover v. State, 368 Md. 211 (Maryland precedent on measuring delay from arrest or formal charge)
- United States v. Handa, 892 F.3d 95 (First Circuit test: additional charge does not reset clock if based on same conduct and government could have brought it earlier)
- United States v. Black, 918 F.3d 243 (Second Circuit reasoning that original indictment’s filing protects defendants’ liberty interests and memory of evidence)