United States v. Moreno
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 9382
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- A sealed indictment (May 2011) charged Frank Moreno with narcotics conspiracy; other co-defendants were arrested during Operation Block Crusher but Moreno evaded capture until a Bronx traffic stop by state police (Sept. 2013), ~27 months after the indictment was unsealed.
- FBI investigated after unsealing: searched two Bronx addresses identified by informants, entered Moreno into NCIC, ran utility and airline-record queries, and obtained cell-site/account data for an associate; investigative activity continued through November 2012 and then ceased for ~10 months.
- Moreno moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice under the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right, submitting an affidavit (and supporting documents) that he lived openly at 40 Morrow Avenue in Scarsdale, an address the FBI did not search.
- The district court granted dismissal, finding the government’s pre-arrest delay was due to negligence and that Moreno was prejudiced; a reconsideration motion was denied after the government submitted evidence challenging Moreno’s Scarsdale residence and emphasizing investigative steps taken.
- The Second Circuit reviewed for abuse of discretion (fact findings for clear error), agreed delay triggered Barker analysis and Moreno asserted his right timely, but reversed: only ~10 months of the 27-month delay was attributable to government inaction and Moreno failed to show particularized trial prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pre-arrest delay violated the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right | Moreno: 27-month pre-arrest delay due to government negligence (failure to search Scarsdale address) entitles him to dismissal | Government: investigators acted with reasonable diligence through Nov. 2012; only the subsequent 10 months reflect inactivity; additional investigative steps might not have succeeded | Court: Delay triggered Barker but only the 10-month post-Nov. 2012 inactivity is attributable to the government; whole 27 months not solely government-caused |
| Whether government exercised reasonable diligence in locating Moreno | Moreno: government was "anemic" and failed to follow obvious leads (40 Morrow Ave.) | Government: made multiple reasonable efforts (NCIC entry, informant interviews, utility/airline queries, cell-site data) calculated to find Moreno | Court: Government efforts through Nov. 2012 were reasonably diligent; misfires do not equal negligence sufficient to attribute entire delay |
| Whether prejudice from delay was established | Moreno: lengthy delay impaired defense (fading memory of phone calls) and living openly at Scarsdale suggests government could have found him sooner | Government: no particularized evidence of trial prejudice; recorded phone calls preserved and generalized memory loss is speculative | Court: Moreno offered only conjecture about trial prejudice; Doggett presumption not triggered here given shorter government-attributable delay; prejudice not shown |
| Appropriate remedy (dismissal with prejudice) | Moreno: dismissal warranted because delay violated speedy-trial right | Government: dismissal was an abuse of discretion given limited period of attributable delay and lack of prejudice | Court: District court abused discretion in dismissing; indictment must be reinstated |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (pre-arrest delay, negligence vs. presumptive prejudice principles)
- United States v. Ghailani, 733 F.3d 29 (abuse-of-discretion review and balancing in speedy trial context)
- Rayborn v. Scully, 858 F.2d 84 (government duty to exercise due diligence in locating accused)
- United States v. Jones, 91 F.3d 5 (short government-attributable delay insufficient alone to warrant dismissal)
- United States v. Watson, 599 F.2d 1149 (triggering speedy-trial right on unsealing of a sealed indictment)
- United States v. Blanco, 861 F.2d 773 (causal link requirement between investigative neglect and delay)
- United States v. Diacolios, 837 F.2d 79 (failure to show causal connection defeats claim that negligence caused delay)