United States v. Christopher Myers
930 F.3d 1113
| 9th Cir. | 2019Background
- In Jan 2015 police stopped a car; during an altercation Christopher Myers was shot by an officer after a pistol in his pocket discharged.
- State charged Myers with assault and possession; state prosecution proceeded with many continuances and delays; Myers pleaded guilty in Jan 2017 and received 63 months.
- Federal indictment for felon-in-possession (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1)) issued May 5, 2015; federal authorities placed a detainer and waited to proceed until state proceedings concluded.
- Myers repeatedly asserted his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right, moved to dismiss federally; district court denied motions, concluding the federal delay to allow state prosecution was a valid reason and that Myers suffered no prejudice.
- Myers pleaded guilty federally but preserved the speedy-trial issue on appeal; Ninth Circuit reviews de novo and remands to reweigh Barker factors because district court may have applied a per se rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 22-month post-indictment delay violated the Sixth Amendment speedy trial right | Delay (22 months) was presumptively prejudicial and warrants dismissal | Delay was justified because federal authorities reasonably waited for state prosecution to finish | Length (22 months) is presumptively prejudicial; case remanded for full Barker balancing |
| Whether waiting for concurrent state proceedings is a categorically valid reason for federal delay | Such a blanket rule is improper; government must justify particularized need to delay | Waiting avoids administrative burdens, safety risks, and interference with state prosecutions | Court rejects a bright-line rule; courts must evaluate the nature/circumstances of concurrent-prosecution delays case-by-case |
| Whether Myers suffered prejudice from the delay (oppressive incarceration, anxiety, impaired defense) | Myers suffered anxiety, solitary confinement, and loss of counsel effectiveness | Conditions and counsel issues tied to state proceedings; no record evidence federal delay impaired defense | District court’s factual findings that Myers failed to show prejudice were not clearly erroneous on record presented |
| Whether district court misapplied Barker by treating concurrent-state delay as neutral | District court may have applied a per se rule and failed to weigh the government’s reasons under an ad hoc test | District court treated the government’s reason as valid/neutral and found no bad faith or prejudice | Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded because district court may not have applied the required ad hoc balancing to the government’s reasons |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Sup. Ct. 1972) (establishes four-factor speedy-trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (length of delay threshold and presumption of prejudice doctrine)
- United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (Sup. Ct. 1986) (treatment of delays caused by interlocutory appeals and need to assess nature/merits)
- United States v. Seltzer, 595 F.3d 1170 (10th Cir. 2010) (concurrent-state-prosecution delays require particularized justification)
- United States v. Thomas, 55 F.3d 144 (4th Cir. 1995) (concurrent state charges can be a valid reason to delay federal prosecution)
- United States v. Schreane, 331 F.3d 548 (6th Cir. 2003) (holding that waiting for another sovereign is a valid reason for delay)
- United States v. Ellis, 622 F.3d 784 (7th Cir. 2010) (administrative concerns may justify delay but fault must be assessed)
- United States v. Gregory, 322 F.3d 1157 (9th Cir. 2003) (delays approaching one year are presumptively prejudicial)