United States v. Brandon Thompson, 15-3211

Thompson and seven co-defendants were charged in a multi-defendant heroin distribution conspiracy; Thompson later pled guilty and received 180 months.
The Government planned to introduce court-ordered wiretap recordings; Thompson moved to suppress arguing 18 U.S.C. § 2518(8)(a) required proof of actual sealing of tapes.
District Court denied suppression, finding signed sealing orders were sufficient evidence the tapes had been sealed; Thompson presented no evidence of tampering or delayed sealing.
Trial was set and continued multiple times; the Government requested one continuance (Dec 2014→Jan 2015) and consolidation with another indictment (involving co-defendant Drew) led to further continuances, some requested by defense counsel.
By April 2015 Thompson had been in pretrial detention ~25 months and moved to dismiss for Sixth Amendment speedy trial violations; the District Court denied the motion, and Thompson reserved the right to appeal both denials with his guilty plea.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2518(8)(a) required proof of actual physical sealing of wiretap tapes before use	Thompson: Government must prove tapes were actually sealed (not just that a sealing order exists)	Government: A signed sealing order is sufficient; no additional proof absent allegations of tampering	Affirmed: District Court’s factual finding that the signed sealing orders sufficed was not clearly erroneous; suppression denied
Whether there was a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation under Barker v. Wingo	Thompson: 26-month pretrial detention and delay violated speedy trial rights	Government: Majority of delay attributable to Thompson and co-defendants; government only responsible for short continuances	Affirmed: Applying Barker factors, two factors (reasons for delay, prejudice) weigh against Thompson; overall no violation

United States v. Kennedy, 638 F.3d 159 (3d Cir.) (standard for clear-error review of factual findings)
United States v. Vastola, 25 F.3d 164 (3d Cir.) (wiretap factual-findings review)
United States v. Velazquez, 749 F.3d 161 (3d Cir.) (definition of clear error)
United States v. Ojeda Rios, 495 U.S. 257 (U.S.) (purpose of § 2518(8)(a) to protect recordings from tampering)
United States v. Burgos-Montes, 786 F.2d 92 (1st Cir.) (government burden does not require proving a negative absent tampering allegations)
United States v. Claxton, 766 F.3d 280 (3d Cir.) (Barker factors and standard of review for Sixth Amendment claims)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S.) (four-factor test for speedy-trial claims)