United States v. Tigano, 880 F.3d 602

Background

Joseph Tigano III was arrested July 8, 2008 on marijuana- and weapons-related charges after DEA found >1,400 plants; he remained detained throughout pretrial proceedings.
Tigano repeatedly asserted his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and refused plea offers; his father pleaded guilty in 2013.
Over ~6 years, the case incurred numerous delays: three court-ordered competency evaluations (all found Tigano competent), administrative failures (USMS transports, late transcript production), congested court calendars, overlapping magistrate referrals, and protracted plea negotiations.
Defense counsel and Tigano’s father requested or joined multiple adjournments; counsel pursued plea discussions despite Tigano’s insistence on trial and occasional requests to proceed pro se.
Trial began May 4, 2015 (≈6 years, 10 months after arrest); Tigano was convicted May 8, 2015; the Second Circuit later reversed and dismissed the indictment with prejudice for a speedy-trial violation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Tigano’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated by nearly seven years' pretrial delay	Tigano argued the cumulative delay, the government/court responsibility for most delays, his repeated assertions of the right, and oppressive pretrial incarceration required dismissal with prejudice	Government contended delay was not attributable to it (some delays were neutral or defense-caused) and pointed to competency evaluations and docket congestion	Court held the delay violated the Sixth Amendment and dismissed the indictment with prejudice
Weight of reasons for delay (competency exams, administrative failures, plea bargaining, docket congestion)	Reasons for delay largely attributable to government/court (repetitive competency exams prompted by Tigano’s assertion of rights, USMS/transcript delays, prolonged plea negotiations)	Government claimed none of the delay was its responsibility or that many delays were neutral/necessary	Court assigned delay-related fault primarily to government/court and counted those delays against the government
Effect of defendant’s counsel seeking continuances contrary to defendant’s insistence on a speedy trial	Tigano argued his own consistent assertions control; counsel’s requests should not waive his constitutional right	Government argued some delays resulted from defense conduct and counsel’s strategy	Court held the defendant’s repeated assertions weigh strongly in his favor; counsel’s contrary actions do not negate Tigano’s constitutional claim
Remedy for constitutional speedy-trial violation	Tigano sought dismissal with prejudice	Government opposed drastic remedy given litigation history	Court ordered dismissal with prejudice as the appropriate remedy for the severe Sixth Amendment violation

Key Cases Cited

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (establishes four-factor balancing test for speedy trial claims)
Klopfer v. North Carolina, 386 U.S. 213 (1967) (right to a speedy trial is fundamental and applicable to the states)
Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973) (dismissal with prejudice appropriate remedy when speedy-trial right violated)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (prejudice need not be proven with particularized harm in every speedy-trial claim)
United States v. New Buffalo Amusement Corp., 600 F.2d 368 (2d Cir. 1979) (delay burden shifts to government once delay shown)
United States v. Vispi, 545 F.2d 328 (2d Cir. 1976) (government obligation to bring cases to trial; institutional delays chargeable to government)
United States v. Carini, 562 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1977) (institutional delays and court inaction can be charged to the government)
United States v. Anderson, 394 F.2d 743 (2d Cir. 1968) (defendant, not court, decides defense strategy)
United States v. Wellington, 417 F.3d 284 (2d Cir. 2005) (attorney must not usurp client decisions)
Purdy v. United States, 208 F.3d 41 (2d Cir. 2000) (counsel cannot coerce client into pleading guilty)