United States v. Danylo
2014 CAAF LEXIS 273
C.A.A.F.2014Background
- Appellant tested positive for drugs in March 2010, was placed in escalating restrictions and then in pretrial confinement on April 16, 2010.
- Appellant first demanded a speedy trial on May 3, 2010; charges were preferred and an Article 32 hearing held; a pretrial agreement preserving speedy-trial issues was signed in August 2010.
- On August 10, 2010 the military judge dismissed charges with prejudice for speedy-trial violations; the Government appealed under Article 62 and the CCA set aside the dismissal 170 days after the appeal was filed.
- Appellant remained in confinement a total of 349 days (pretrial confinement), and his court-martial resumed March 31, 2011; he entered conditional pleas, was convicted, and received a sentence of 10 months’ confinement (credited as time served) and a bad-conduct discharge.
- The central delay components were: ~116 days from imposition of confinement to initial trial referral, and ~170 days while the CCA adjudicated the Government’s Article 62 appeal.
- The CAAF reviewed whether the full period of delay amounted to a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation and whether the military judge erred by focusing his analysis on the appellate-delay segment.
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 349 days in pretrial confinement violated the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right | The total delay (including 170‑day CCA appeal) violated Sixth Amendment; dismissal with prejudice required | The prosecution delays were largely reasonable (investigation, witness immunity) and the CCA appeal delay was deliberate/neutral; no Sixth Amendment violation | No Sixth Amendment violation; dismissal with prejudice not warranted |
| Whether reasons for delay (prosecution strategy and CCA appeal) weigh against the Government | Both prosecution strategy and the unexplained CCA delay weigh for Appellant | Prosecution strategy (witness preparation/immunity) is reasonable; Article 62 appellate delay is more neutral because it was deliberate and within appellate discretion | Prosecution strategy reasonable; CCA appeal delay concerning but treated as more neutral for Barker balancing |
| Whether Appellant properly asserted his speedy-trial right | Appellant repeatedly demanded a speedy trial beginning May 3, 2010 | Government conceded multiple demands and motions to expedite | Factor (demand) strongly favors Appellant |
| Whether the military judge erred by focusing only on post-Article-62 delay | Appellant: the judge should have treated the delay as a continuum and weighed all time together | Government: judge properly followed law-of-the-case and CCA’s prior ruling so focus on remaining delay was appropriate | No error; judge considered full period but permissibly focused on the portion not resolved by the CCA |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Sup. Ct. 1972) (framework for Sixth Amendment speedy-trial balancing)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (Sup. Ct. 1992) (prejudice inquiry; most serious is impairment of defense)
- Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (pretrial detention is not punishment if reasonably related to legitimate objective)
- United States v. Ewell, 383 U.S. 116 (Sup. Ct. 1966) (recognizing deliberate pace of prosecution may be reasonable)
- United States v. MacDonald, 456 U.S. 1 (Sup. Ct. 1982) (speedy-trial analysis covers entire continuum from restraint to trial)
- United States v. Moreno, 63 M.J. 129 (C.A.A.F. 2006) (review of CCA processing time is deferential; courts should exercise institutional vigilance)