United States v. Sergio Velazquez
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 6850
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Velazquez was indicted in November 2005; the government did not arrest him until December 2011, a roughly six-year gap.
- From 2005 to 2010 authorities largely limited efforts to NCIC checks and limited Sacramento-area leads, with no direct attempts to interview family or pursue multiple addresses.
- A 2005 collateral collateral request identified several leads (addresses, family contacts, relatives) that were not followed up in the ensuing years.
- In 2011–2012, new collateral efforts identified a Bell Gardens address and a Norwalk address, leading to surveillance and eventual arrest.
- The district court denied Velazquez’s speedy-trial motion, ruling reasonable diligence; on appeal the Third Circuit held the delay was unconstitutional, reversing and remanding to dismiss with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether five-year post-indictment delay violated speedy-trial rights | Velazquez argues government negligence breached Barker factors | Velazquez contends delay created prejudice and was not reasonably diligent | Yes; delay violated speedy-trial rights |
| Whether the delay was attributable to government negligence rather than defendant evasion | Negligence by authorities caused delay; pursuit was insufficient | Velazquez’s transient lifestyle hindered investigation; less government fault | Government negligence established; not a mere lifestyle issue |
| Whether Velazquez knew of the indictment timely to trigger the assertion of speedy-trial rights | Knowledge of charges is key; later indictment awareness matters for assertion | Indictment awareness occurred at arrest; timely assertion favored Velazquez | Knowledge of indictment at arrest; timely assertion favored Velazquez |
| Whether the delay caused prejudice to Velazquez’s defense justifying relief | Delays eroded memory and hindered defense preparation; presumption of prejudice applies | Prejudice not shown; defenses preserved by recorded statements and co-defendants’ testimony | Presumption of prejudice due to extraordinary delay; prejudice established |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (Supreme Court 1972) (four-factor speedy-trial test; no single factor controls)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (Supreme Court 1992) (negligence can create presumption of prejudice over long delays)
- United States v. Battis, 589 F.3d 673 (3d Cir. 2009) (presumption of prejudice governs when delay is extraordinary)
- Hakeem v. Beyer, 990 F.2d 750 (3d Cir. 1993) (defendant bears burden to show prejudice; general allegations insufficient)
- United States v. Marion, 404 U.S. 307 (Supreme Court 1971) (Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights attach upon indictment or arrest)
- United States v. Mendoza, 530 F.3d 758 (9th Cir. 2008) (knowledge of charges relevant to assertion timing)
- United States v. Mundt, 29 F.3d 233 (6th Cir. 1994) (delays and defendant’s lifestyle considerations in diligence analysis)