United States v. Burrell
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2916
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Burrell was convicted of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1).
- Trial began 165 days after Burrell first appeared before a judge, exceeding the Speedy Trial Act window absent exclusions.
- District court excluded time under § 3161(h)(3) for an unavailable essential witness and § 3161(h)(1)(D) for a pretrial suppression motion; the exclusion for the witness was disputed.
- Burrell challenged the continuance as improperly supported and argued due diligence was not shown; the district court denied relief.
- This court held the exclusions did not apply because the government failed to prove due diligence and that the witness was unavailable, so the trial violated the Speedy Trial Act.
- The case is remanded for the district court to consider whether to dismiss the indictment with or without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial commenced within the 70-day window | Burrell argues the trial violated the Speedy Trial Act | Burrell argues the exclusions should apply to time beyond 70 days | No; exclusions failed, trial beyond 70 days remains valid for reversal. |
| Whether the unavailable essential witness exclusion applied | government contends Crawford was unavailable under §3161(h)(3) | Burrell asserts no due diligence showing | No; government failed to prove due diligence and thus cannot exclude time. |
| Whether the ends of justice exclusion applied | Government seeks ends of justice delay to outweigh speedy-trial interests | Court should not grant delay absent due diligence for unavailable witness | No; without §3161(h)(3) showing, ends of justice exclusion cannot apply. |
| What remedy is warranted for a Speedy Trial Act violation | N/A | N/A | Conviction reversed, sentence vacated, indictment dismissed with/without prejudice remanded for a decision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloate v. United States, 130 S. Ct. 1345 (2010) (exclusion for pretrial motion periods; context of exigent exclusions)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (clear statutory language; dismissal remedy if deadline not met)
- Stephens v. United States, 489 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2007) (mandatory three-factor dismissal framework; remand for factor consideration)
- United States v. Bigler, 810 F.2d 1317 (5th Cir. 1987) (government bears burden to show ends of justice exclusion; not automatic)
- Patterson v. United States, 277 F.3d 709 (4th Cir. 2002) (due diligence standard; evidence must show reasonable efforts to secure witness)