United States v. Cooke, No. 16-1381 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendants Cooke and Cantu appealed their sentences and convictions for conspiring to distribute methamphetamine. Cooke argued in his motion to dismiss that the 65 day delay between his February 18 arrest and April 24 initial appearance violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 5(a)(1)(A) and the Sixth Amendment. The court concluded that the appropriate remedy for a violation of Rule 5(a)(1)(A) is not dismissal of an indictment, but suppression of evidence illegally obtained as a result of the violation. In this case, Cooke pointed to no such evidence, he was not prejudiced by the period of delay, and he cannot identify any available remedy for an alleged violation of Rule 5. This case involved several coconspirator defendants, voluminous discovery, several requests from defendants for continuances, and motions for both Cooke's and Cantu's requests for continuances as well as their motions to withdraw. The court concluded that, given the circumstances in this case, there was no violation of Cooke's right to a speedy trial under the Sixth Amendment based on the delay. The court also concluded that there was no procedural error in the district court's upward departure of Cooke's sentence nor was the departure substantively unreasonable. The court further concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying an upward variance to Cooke's sentence. The court concluded that Cantu waived her challenge to the admission of text message evidence; her Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161(c)(1), claim was waived; the court declined to address Cantu's ineffective assistance of counsel claim; and the evidence was sufficient to support her conviction. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Colloton and Gruender, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law and sentencing. The appropriate remedy for a violation of Criminal Rule 5(a)(1)(A) is not dismissal of an indictment, but suppression of evidence illegally obtained as a result of the violation; defendant Cooke can point to no such evidence (his only claim being the delay impacted appointment of counsel and trial preparation time) and the type of prejudice he asserts is not addressed by the rule; in any event, the court postponed the trial date to give his counsel adequate time to prepare; as a result, there was no prejudice and the court did not err in denying his motion for dismissal for a supposed violation of Rule 5; claim the time between indictment and trial violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial rejected, given the length of the delay and the complexity of the case, and the fact that two of the continuances were requested by defendant Cooke's counsel; no error in granting an upward departure at sentencing based on under-represented criminal history and the seriousness of Cooke's offenses; the parties' agreement that a 2015 assault on defendant Cooke's girlfriend was nonrelevant conduct was not binding on the district court and it could exercise its discretion to consider the conduct in determining to grant an upward variance. Defendant Cantu failed to move to suppress her text messages and had waived her right to present the issue on appeal, even as plain error; Speedy Trial Act claim was also waived as defendant never moved to dismiss the case; claim of ineffective assistance of counsel related to the Speedy Trial Act claim should be raised in a habeas action; evidence was sufficient to support Cantu's conviction for conspiracy.
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.