United States v. James Sodano, Sr., 592 F. App'x 114

Sodano robbed an armed money carrier in Newark, NJ, and was found nearby with a gunshot wound, guns, and a blood-stained bag of money.
A jury convicted Sodano of robbery, conspiracy to commit robbery, and discharging a firearm during a crime of violence.
The District Court upwardly departed from the Guidelines based on the heinous nature of the crime and sentenced Sodano to 486 months.
Arrest occurred in June 2011, arraignment July 13, 2011, trial commenced March 15, 2014, a 20-month pre-trial delay.
Sodano raised speedy-trial challenges; the court reviewed under Barker v. Wingo factors and concluded no violation.
A witness’s out-of-court statement was excluded as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Sodano’s 20-month delay a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation?	Sodano	Sodano	No violation; delay attributed to Sodano and not prejudicial.
Was the witness’s statement admissible as a prior inconsistent statement under Rule 801(d)(1)(A)?	Sodano sought admission	District Court abused discretion	Admissible as impeachment only; not as 801(d)(1)(A) due to lack of oath/proceeding.
Was the upward departure and sentence reasonable and properly justified?	Sodano	District Court properly departed and explained mitigation rejected	Upward departure affirmed; no reversible errors found in sentencing.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (U.S. 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial framework)
United States v. Velazquez, 749 F.3d 161 (3d Cir. 2014) (even 14-month delay triggers Barker factors)
United States v. Green, 617 F.3d 233 (3d Cir. 2010) (abuse-of-discretion review of evidentiary rulings)
United States v. Bettis, 589 F.3d 673 (3d Cir. 2008) (weakness of informal speedy-trial assertions by represented defendants)
United States v. Hamilton, 46 F.3d 271 (3d Cir. 1995) (plenary review of speedy-trial act construction; findings reviewed for clear error)