United States v. Megan Mosteller
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 2103
| 4th Cir. | 2014Background
- Mosteller charged with theft of government funds under 18 U.S.C. § 641 based on receipt of VA benefits.
- Trial began 2011; testimony about education benefits prompted a motion for mistrial due to scope outside indictment.
- District court granted mistrial on condition that Mosteller waive Speedy Trial Act rights until January 2012 term.
- Grand jury issued superseding indictment charging both surviving spouse and education benefits theft; second trial began 2012, over 70 days after mistrial.
- Mosteller did not move to dismiss under the Speedy Trial Act; appellate argument challenged ACT violation.
- Court held waiver of future ACT rights void but barred appellate review of ACT claim due to statutory waiver; affirmed judgment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the district court condition a mistrial on a Speedy Trial Act waiver? | Mosteller argues waiver was improper under Zedner. | Mosteller’s conditional waiver permissible under court’s discretion. | Waiver conditioned on mistrial was improper; but reviewed later moot. |
| Can appellate plain error review assess an ACT violation not timely raised in district court? | Mosteller argues plain error review applies. | The Act’s waiver provision forecloses such review when not timely raised. | Plain error review not available; statutory waiver governs. |
| Does the 70-day rule apply to the second trial after mistrial when no timely motion to dismiss was made? | Mosteller asserts violation occurred due to delay. | Waiver and dismissal rules control; timely motion absent. | Issue not reviewed as ACT claim barred by waiver; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Zedner v. United States, 547 F.3d 149 (Supreme Court 2006) (speedy-trial waiver cannot bar future claims; governs dismissal remedy)
- United States v. Henry, 538 F.3d 300 (4th Cir. 2008) (failure to move to dismiss constitutes waiver under ACT)
- United States v. Cherry, 720 F.3d 161 (4th Cir. 2013) (failure to timely raise ACT issue results in waiver as to ACT claim)
- United States v. Littrice, 666 F.3d 1053 (7th Cir. 2012) (plain error review unavailable where waiver governs ACT claim)
- United States v. Abad, 514 F.3d 271 (2d Cir. 2008) (same plain-error waiver principle for ACT claims)
- United States v. Spagnuolo, 469 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2006) (ACT claims must be timely raised to avoid waiver)
- United States v. Gamboa, 439 F.3d 796 (8th Cir. 2006) (ACT waiver doctrine recognized)
- United States v. Gomez, 67 F.3d 1515 (10th Cir. 1995) (ACT waiver principle then-ongoing)
- United States v. McDaniel, 631 F.3d 1204 (11th Cir. 2011) (discusses ACT waiver context)
- United States v. Carrasco, 257 F.3d 1045 (9th Cir. 2001) (plain error review for ACT claim not compelled by waiver)