United States v. Trent Howard
22-30012
| 9th Cir. | Apr 17, 2023Background
- Howard was indicted on June 18, 2019 while working in Kazakhstan and did not return to the U.S. as scheduled.
- The government sought extradition from Kazakhstan (its first criminal extradition request to that country); extradition was approved August 14, 2020 and Howard returned November 11, 2020 after appealing the initial order.
- Trial was scheduled for October 4, 2021, creating a 28-month interval between indictment and trial.
- The government executed a search warrant based on an affidavit describing single-source child‑pornography downloads traced to Howard’s IP address (a January 5, 2019 download; the warrant was executed five months later).
- Howard moved to dismiss for violation of his Sixth Amendment speedy-trial right, to suppress evidence seized under the warrant (arguing typographical errors and staleness), and for a Franks hearing alleging false or reckless statements in the affidavit.
- The district court denied all three motions; the Ninth Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Howard's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sixth Amendment speedy trial | 28‑month delay between indictment and trial violated his speedy‑trial right | Delay resulted from Howard’s failure to return and complex extradition during COVID; government acted reasonably | Applying Barker factors, court found length favored Howard but reasons, late assertion, and lack of actual prejudice favored government; no violation |
| Suppression — probable cause for search warrant | Typographical errors in affidavit and five‑month gap rendered probable cause deficient / information stale | Affidavit gave particularized description tying downloads to Howard’s IP; affiant’s experience supported that materials would be retained; errors were sloppy but immaterial | Probable cause existed; typographical errors did not defeat probable cause; suppression denied |
| Franks hearing | Affidavit contained deliberate or reckless false statements/omissions warranting an evidentiary hearing | Allegations were conclusory, lacked detailed offer of proof, and did not show challenged statements were necessary to probable cause | Denied: Howard failed to meet Franks/DiCesare requirements for a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (establishes four‑factor speedy‑trial balancing test)
- United States v. Gregory, 322 F.3d 1157 (delays approaching one year are presumptively prejudicial)
- United States v. Schesso, 730 F.3d 1040 (particularized IP‑download descriptions can supply probable cause)
- United States v. Lacy, 119 F.3d 742 (law‑enforcement experience can defeat staleness challenges for seized digital materials)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (standards for evidentiary hearing on alleged false statements in warrant affidavit)
- United States v. DiCesare, 765 F.2d 890 (Ninth Circuit articulation of Franks hearing requirements)