United States v. Christopher Mallett
751 F.3d 907
8th Cir.2014Background
- Allen and Mallett (with co-defendant Tyler) were indicted on a conspiracy to distribute 280+ grams of crack cocaine; jury convicted Allen and Mallett.
- Tyler pleaded guilty after requesting a change-of-plea hearing in July 2012; that hearing and other pretrial activity affected the Speedy Trial Act (§3161) clock.
- Allen moved to dismiss for Speedy Trial Act and Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violations; the magistrate and district court denied the motion.
- At trial, multiple witnesses (including undercover officers and cooperating witnesses) testified that Allen, Mallett, and Tyler commonly sold crack together, shared a phone and scale, made deliveries, and possessed quantities supporting a 280-gram conspiracy.
- Mallett sought severance pretrial (denied) and raised a Batson challenge during jury selection after the government used a peremptory to remove a young African-American woman.
- On appeal the Eighth Circuit affirmed: STA and Sixth Amendment claims rejected; Batson challenge denied; sufficiency of the evidence upheld; severance claim denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy Trial Act exclusion for July 20–26, 2012 | Allen: period not excludable because Tyler’s request was not a filed “motion” under §3161(h)(1)(D) | Government: Tyler’s request (to set plea hearing) amounted to a motion (formal or informal) triggering §3161(h)(1)(D) exclusion | Court held Tyler’s plea request qualified as a motion; the seven days were excluded and STA satisfied |
| Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim | Allen: ~17‑month pretrial delay violated Sixth Amendment | Government: much of delay attributable to defendants (Allen’s plea activity, continuances); no prejudice shown | No Sixth Amendment violation — delay largely defendant-caused and Allen showed no actual prejudice |
| Batson challenge to peremptory strike | Mallett: government struck Juror 19 on racial grounds | Government: provided race‑neutral reasons (demeanor, age, single/no community ties, inattentive) | District court credited race‑neutral reasons; Eighth Circuit found no clear error and denied Batson claim |
| Sufficiency of evidence & severance | Allen/Mallett: testimony of users/cooperators unreliable; quantity evidence insufficient; Mallett: joint trial prejudiced him | Government: circumstantial evidence, shared phone/scale, joint sales and deliveries, quantity testimony (e.g., Tyler’s testimony, witnesses seeing substantial amounts) supported conspiracy and 280g+ | Evidence sufficient for conspiracy and 280g+; joint trial not so prejudicial as to require severance; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bloate v. United States, 559 U.S. 196 (limiting §3161(h)(1) excludability to specific governing subparagraphs)
- Bloate II (United States v. Bloate), 655 F.3d 750 (8th Cir.) (analyzing what counts as a “motion” under §3161(h)(1)(D))
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (standard for presumptively prejudicial delay)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor Sixth Amendment speedy-trial balancing test)
- United States v. Littrell, 439 F.3d 875 (8th Cir.) (co-conspirator may be held responsible for reasonably foreseeable quantities)
- United States v. Slagg, 651 F.3d 832 (8th Cir.) (tacit agreement and interdependence support conspiracy inference)
- United States v. Ellison, 616 F.3d 829 (8th Cir.) (Batson framework and deference to district court factfinding)
- United States v. Porchay, 651 F.3d 930 (8th Cir.) (standards of review for STA rulings)