United States v. Robin Sims, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 1841

Robin Sims was arrested June 24, 2013; trial began May 11, 2015. A superseding indictment charged drug and felon-in-possession counts.
The district court ordered government expert disclosures seven days before the pretrial conference; the government disclosed DNA evidence and an expert days before trial after belated testing.
The district court excluded the DNA evidence as a sanction and denied the government's continuance request; the government appealed interlocutorily.
On appeal (Sims I), this court affirmed exclusion, finding the government acted with more than negligence and that the DNA evidence was central to the firearm charge.
The interlocutory appeal and the government’s multiple extension requests delayed the case about twelve-and-a-half months attributable to the government (about 22.5 months total from arrest to trial, with ~10 months attributable to Sims’ earlier continuance requests).
Sims moved to dismiss post-judgment, arguing the interlocutory appeal violated his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right; the district court denied the motion and Sims was convicted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the government’s interlocutory appeal violated Sims’ Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial	Interlocutory appeal and six extensions caused an unreasonable delay and violated Sims’ speedy-trial rights	Interlocutory appeal is ordinarily a valid reason for delay; the appeal concerned central evidence and was not frivolous	No violation; Barker factors weighed against Sims — the government’s delay was negligent but the appeal was legitimate and caused no particularized prejudice
Whether the length of the delay was presumptively prejudicial	22.5-month delay triggered presumptive prejudice	Much of the delay was due to Sims’ own continuance request	Delay was presumptively prejudicial but required weighing other Barker factors
Whether the government’s reason for delay warrants heavy blame	Government sought appeal despite knowing Sims wanted prompt trial and requested multiple extensions	Appeal concerned the admissibility of crucial DNA evidence to a serious charge, so pursuing it was reasonable	Government’s conduct showed negligence/indifference but not bad faith; delay afforded little weight because appeal was legitimate
Whether Sims suffered prejudice from the delay	Presumptive prejudice suffices; Doggett allows relief without particularized harm	Sims showed no actual, particularized prejudice from the delay	Sims failed to show particularized prejudice; this factor does not favor dismissal

United States v. Sims, 776 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirming exclusion of DNA evidence as sanction)
Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor speedy trial balancing test)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptive prejudice and varying weight of prejudice based on government negligence)
United States v. Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (1986) (interlocutory appeals by the government may justify delay but court should assess purpose and reasonableness)
United States v. Erenas-Luna, 560 F.3d 772 (8th Cir. 2009) (allocation of delay and assessment of defendant’s assertion of speedy trial right)