United States v. Gould
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 4020
| 10th Cir. | 2012Background
- Gould, a former Doña Ana County Detention Center lieutenant, was convicted on four counts relating to excessive force and false reporting.
- Two incidents: Doña Ana County assault on an inmate and Cibola County incident with nonlethal projectiles; later evidence included a 2005 competency report.
- Gould was detained in administrative segregation for an extended period from conviction to final judgment.
- Sentence imposed on May 6, 2009; final judgment entered January 19, 2011, 623 days after sentencing and 1,388 days after conviction.
- Gould argued a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation due to the delay and challenged exclusion of three memoranda written by him.
- The district court and this court assess the delay under Barker v. Wingo and determine the entirety of the post-conviction period is relevant to the speedy-trial analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the delay from conviction to final judgment violated the Sixth Amendment. | Gould seeks relief for the entire 1,388 days. | The period through sentencing should be considered, not the entire post-conviction interval. | No Sixth Amendment violation; delay factors do not show prejudicial denial of the right. |
| Whether excluding Gould's memoranda was reversible error. | Memoranda admitted for Rule 106 and non-hearsay purposes. | Memoranda were properly excluded as hearsay. | Harmless error; exclusion did not affect substantial rights. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. United States, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy-trial framework; delay must be evaluated together with circumstances)
- Yehling, 456 F.3d 1236 (10th Cir. 2006) (assumed extension of speedy-trial rights to post-sentencing period; timing matters)
- Perez v. Sullivan, 793 F.2d 249 (10th Cir. 1986) (pre-conviction/incarceration prejudice considerations; not extend to speculative confinement harms)
- Dirden, 38 F.3d 1131 (10th Cir. 1994) (assertion of speedy-trial rights weighs in evaluating prejudice)
- Batie, 433 F.3d 1287 (10th Cir. 2006) (defendant's assertion of speedy-trial rights is critical to weighing factors)
- Abdush-Shakur, 465 F.3d 458 (10th Cir. 2006) (government delay responsibility proportionate to causation)
- Bowling, 619 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2010) (harmless error analysis for evidentiary rulings in non-constitutional errors)
- Clifton, 406 F.3d 1173 (10th Cir. 2010) (harmless error standard reaffirmed; cumulative impact considered)