United States v. Sims, No. 16-1696 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of three counts of conspiring to distribute, distributing, and aiding and abetting the distribution of heroin; and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Specifically, defendant argued that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial by filing an interlocutory appeal of the district court’s decision to exclude the DNA evidence. The court weighed the Barker factors and concluded that defendant has not proved that the government violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. The court explained that, given that only twelve and a half months of the pretrial delay was attributable to the government, defendant's failure to show the government was at fault for pursuing the year-long interlocutory appeal or the delay caused him prejudice is fatal to his claim. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Kelly, Author, with Riley, Chief Judge, and Kelly Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. Delay created by the government's unsuccessful interlocutory appeal of an exclusion order - see United States v. Sims, 776 F.3d 583 (8th Cir. 2015) - did not create a violation of defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial; the delay caused by an interlocutory appeal can be the basis for a Sixth Amendment speedy trial claim; even though the government's dilatory conduct in providing information caused the ruling which gave rise to the interlocutory appeal, the interlocutory appeal, itself, was legitimate and was pursued within a reasonable timeframe; further, while defendant did meet the third requirement for a successful speedy trial claim - assertion of the right - defendant failed to show any particularized prejudice resulting from the delay, and the district court did not err in denying the claim.
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.