United States v. Worthy, 772 F.3d 42

Worthy was arrested Aug. 6, 2010; the government filed multiple superseding indictments over 14 months, adding counts and codefendants.
By the time trial approached, most codefendants pleaded guilty; one codefendant, Dereck Berryan, had pleaded but the plea had not yet been accepted by the court.
Clerk’s office stopped the Speedy Trial Act clock for Berryan under 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(1)(G), and also (erroneously, the parties agree) treated Worthy’s clock as stopped — producing 77 days of nonexcludable delay under § 3161(c)(1).
District court found a statutory Speedy Trial Act violation and dismissed the fourth superseding indictment without prejudice after applying the § 3162(a)(2) factors.
The court separately held that Worthy’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claim failed under Barker v. Wingo, weighing length of delay, reasons, assertion of right, and prejudice.
Worthy was re-indicted, tried, convicted, and sentenced; he appealed only the Speedy Trial Act remedy and the Sixth Amendment ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether dismissal with prejudice was required for the § 3161(c)(1) violation	Worthy: delay (77 days) warrants dismissal with prejudice as a meaningful sanction and deterrent	Government/District Court: factors (seriousness of offense, causes of delay, impact on administration, defendant prejudice) support lesser remedy	Court: dismissal without prejudice appropriate; no abuse of discretion in weighing § 3162(a)(2) factors
Whether Worthy’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated	Worthy: ~23–27 months from arrest to trial is presumptively prejudicial and weighs for dismissal	Government/District Court: delay largely explained by case complexity, multiple defendants, motions, and some defendant-caused delay; limited demonstrable prejudice; late assertion of the right	Court: no Sixth Amendment violation — Barker factors weighed against Worthy; no abuse of discretion

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (constitutional speedy-trial balancing test)
United States v. Franklin, 630 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2011) (Speedy Trial Act remedy factors)
United States v. Stephens, 489 F.3d 647 (5th Cir. 2007) (treatment of co-defendant plea under § 3161 exclusions)
United States v. Barnes, 159 F.3d 4 (1st Cir. 1998) (consideration of defendant-caused delay and continuances)
United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326 (Speedy Trial Act sanctions and deterrence rationale)
United States v. Trueber, 238 F.3d 79 (prejudice inquiry in speedy-trial claims)
Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (delay presumptively prejudicial around one year)
United States v. Souza, 749 F.3d 74 (1st Cir. review of Barker analysis)