United States v. Porchay, No. 10-1997 (8th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute cocaine, conspiring to conduct a financial transaction involving illegal proceeds, and six counts of money laundering. After two mistrials, a jury convicted defendant of seven of the eight counts and the district court sentenced defendant to concurrent 150 month sentences on each count. On appeal, defendant challenged the denial of her motions to dismiss, to suppress, for a mistrial, and for a bond pending appeal, alleging violations of the Fourth and Sixth Amendments; the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161; and Franks v. Delaware. The court held that defendant's rights under the Speedy Trial Act were not violated and the district court did not err in denying defendant's motions to dismiss. The court also rejected defendant's argument under Franks. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to suppress where disclosure of impeachment evidence during trial was not a Brady violation because defendant became aware of the information in time to use it for impeachment purposes. The court further held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial at her third trial after her former codefendant invoked the Fifth Amendment in the presence of the jury. The court finally held that the district court did not clearly err in denying her request to remain on release after sentencing but pending appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal case - criminal law. Speedy Trial Act and related Sixth Amendment speedy trial claims rejected; Franks argument rejected; disclosure of impeachment evidence during trial was not a Brady violation as the defendant became aware of the information in time to use it for impeachment purposes; government witness's frivolous invocation of his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination did not prejudice defendant and was not grounds for a mistrial; district court did not abuse its discretion by denying defendant's motion to remain on release pending appeal. Judge Bye, dissenting.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.