Stroup v. Baker
3:12-cv-00414
| D. Nev. | Apr 1, 2015Background
- Bobby Jehu Stroup was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder and sentenced to four consecutive life terms without parole based largely on eyewitness and circumstantial evidence, firearms tracing, jailhouse informant testimony, and blood/DNA evidence.
- Nevada filed a criminal complaint on August 17, 1998; Stroup was in California on unrelated charges and refused to waive extradition, delaying his transfer to Nevada until October 1999.
- After transfer, preliminary proceedings occurred (Dec 1999 hearing; bound over Feb 2000); Stroup was arraigned March 16, 2000 and trial initially set for May 15, 2000.
- Stroup filed numerous pretrial motions including a pretrial habeas petition asserting a speedy-trial violation and later requested continuances for DNA testing; the trial court continued the trial to March 19, 2001 at the parties’ scheduling conference.
- Trial was held March 20–April 3, 2001; Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the convictions on direct appeal (Mar. 17, 2003). Stroup pursued state post-conviction relief, unsuccessful, then filed this federal §2254 habeas asserting a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation.
- The federal district court applied AEDPA deference and denied habeas relief, concluding the Nevada Supreme Court reasonably applied Barker v. Wingo and that the Barker factors weighed against Stroup.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Stroup's Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right was violated by ~2 years, 7 months post-complaint delay | Delay (8+ years from murders; 2+ years post-complaint) presumptively prejudiced Stroup; extradition and Nevada’s timing caused prejudice; earlier Nevada prosecution would have avoided jailhouse informant contacts | Delay was largely attributable to Stroup: (1) California prosecution and his refusal to waive extradition, (2) defense-requested continuances and DNA testing; prosecution acted reasonably | Denied. Applying Barker factors, delay was presumptively prejudicial but reasons for delay and Stroup’s own actions weigh against him; no demonstrable prejudice; state court decision was reasonable under AEDPA |
| Whether prejudice from delay can be presumed and carry the claim absent other Barker factors | Cites Doggett to argue long delay plus government negligence can establish presumptive prejudice | Argues relevant delay starts at criminal complaint (Aug 17, 1998); much delay due to Stroup’s choices; no government bad faith or negligence | Denied. Court found relevant delay ~2y7m (post-complaint), insufficient when balanced with reasons and lack of actual prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor test for speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (long delays plus government negligence may create presumptive prejudice)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (1971) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right is triggered by formal accusation or arrest)
- Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (speedy trial is a fundamental constitutional right)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (AEDPA deference: state-court merits rulings are presumptively reasonable; relief only if no reasonable basis to deny)