266 F. Supp. 3d 443
D. Mass.2017Background
- Handa, co-owner of Alpha Omega Jewelers, was indicted by a federal grand jury for twelve counts of wire fraud on March 3, 2011; he was not arrested until February 22, 2017.
- Handa lived openly in India and the U.K. after 2007, retained U.S. citizenship and passport, and received U.S. Social Security and Medicare benefits while abroad.
- Government agents contacted Handa’s daughter in April 2011 but did not directly locate Handa or notify his lawyers of the indictment; prosecutors used INTERPOL and filed a Red Notice in 2012.
- INTERPOL-New Delhi later requested Handa’s Indian address and passport number (March 2014) to continue the search; the government made no documented further efforts for several years before arresting Handa upon his return to the U.S. in 2017.
- Handa moved to dismiss the indictment under the Sixth Amendment on speedy-trial grounds; the district court granted the motion, concluding the nearly six-year post-indictment delay was attributable to government negligence and prejudicial to Handa’s ability to defend.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the nearly six-year post-indictment delay violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial | Handa: the government’s lengthy, negligent delay (including two+ years of inaction after the Red Notice) presumptively prejudiced his defense and merits dismissal | Government: it exercised diligence (INTERPOL/Red Notice) and the presumption of prejudice is rebutted because the case does not heavily rely on eyewitness memory | Court: Dismissed the indictment — delay was presumptively prejudicial, caused by government negligence, and the presumption of prejudice was not rebutted; Barker factors favor Handa |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (established four-factor balancing test for speedy-trial claims)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (excessive delay due to government negligence gives rise to presumption of prejudice)
- United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 1997) (speedy-trial right attaches at indictment or arrest)
- United States v. Carpenter, 781 F.3d 599 (1st Cir. 2015) (delays approaching one year are presumptively prejudicial)
- Rashad v. Walsh, 300 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2002) (presumed prejudice in aggravated excessive-delay cases)
- United States v. Casas, 356 F.3d 104 (1st Cir. 2004) (government bears primary responsibility to bring case to trial)
- United States v. DeCologero, 530 F.3d 36 (1st Cir. 2008) (pre-indictment delay does not implicate Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right)