United States v. Young, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 19302

Donnell Young pled guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and to killing persons in furtherance of a continuing criminal enterprise; he preserved a speedy-trial appeal.
The case stems from the 1997 Pilcher murder in Oklahoma, with federal indictments beginning November 20, 1998, and continuing through 2002, plus a Notice of Intent to Seek the Death Penalty in 2002.
The multi-defendant, complex case generated 3,628 docket entries and numerous pre-trial motions, continuances, and severance decisions.
Young contributed to delay via vigorous motions practice, continuances, and acquiescing in co-defendants’ requests; he never opposed continuances by others.
Key procedural events include severance rulings (denied in 1999, granted in 2004), interlocutory appeals on evidentiary issues, and voir dire spanning 3.5 months.
Young sought dismissal for speedy-trial violations; the district court denied, and pre- and post-appeal proceedings culminated in a guilty plea in 2009 and sentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Young’s Sixth Amendment speedy-trial rights were violated	Young asserts substantial, systemic delays violated his rights.	Government asserts delays were largely caused by Young and court/systemic factors; delay not unconstitutional.	No Sixth Amendment violation found; delays not attributable to government for prejudice.
Whether dismissal with prejudice is the proper remedy if a speedy-trial violation occurred	Indictment should be dismissed with prejudice as the remedy for violation.	Remedy would only be dismissal if a speedy-trial violation is proven; otherwise no dismissal.	If violated, dismissal with prejudice is required; here no violation occurred, so no dismissal.

Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (four-factor framework for speedy-trial balancing)
Strunk v. United States, 412 U.S. 434 (1973) (speedy-trial rights timing considerations)
Brown v. United States, 498 F.3d 523 (6th Cir. 2007) (dismissal with prejudice as remedy for speedy-trial violation)
Jackson v. United States, 473 F.3d 660 (6th Cir. 2007) (precedent on speedy-trial remedies and prejudice)
Graham v. United States, 128 F.3d 372 (6th Cir. 1997) (district-court delays and government responsibility analysis)
Maples v. Stegall, 427 F.3d 1020 (6th Cir. 2005) (trial court delay and co-defendant/dilatory filing considerations)
Loud Hawk, 474 U.S. 302 (1986) (Loud Hawk: timing of delays-counting against the government in interlocutory appeals)
Brillon v. Dart, 129 S. Ct. 1283 (2009) (systemic breakdown delay attributed to state; public defender services)
Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858 (1989) (when voir dire commences for Sixth Amendment rights)
Brewer v. Williams, 430 U.S. 387 (1977) ( Sixth Amendment rights timing after proceedings initiated)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (jeopardy timing under different constitutional provisions)