United States v. Alexander, No. 14-50576 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant appealed the district court's denial of his motion to dismiss the indictment. Shortly after the indictment was returned, the United States initiated its effort to extradite defendant from Canada for trial. After almost five years, Canada approved the extradition. The district court found 32.5 months of the delay was attributable to Canada, 26.4 months of the delay was attributable to the United States, and 16 months resulted from defendant’s fighting the extradition. With respect to the delay attributable to the United States alone, the district court held that the United States “pursued extradition with reasonable diligence” and that any prejudice caused by the delay was not severe enough to have denied defendant his right to a speedy trial. After weighing the Barker v. Wingo factors, the court agreed with the district court that defendant was not deprived of his right to a speedy trial. The court noted, however, that the U.S. Attorney's offices would do well to adopt systems of controls that would track the status of extradition requests so as to ensure the timely submission of extradition materials to the Justice Department and foreign governments. Such a system would likely have avoided much of the initial 9.6 month delay present in this case. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss an indictment in a case in which the defendant, who was extradited from Canada, claimed that the delay between the indictment and his arrest violated his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The panel wrote that the delay of almost five years is sufficient to trigger an inquiry into the other factors set forth in Barker v. Wingo, but agreed with the district court that the balance of those factors weighs against finding a constitutional violation. The panel held that the record supports the district court’s conclusion that the United States pursued the defendant’s extradition with reasonable diligence. The panel rejected the defendant’s argument that the United States should be held jointly responsible for Canada’s delay under the “joint venture” doctrine. The panel held that the factor relating to the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial favors neither party, where there is no evidence that the defendant knew about the indictment until after he had been arrested, at which point he fought extradition for over 16 months. The panel expressed concern that the 9.6 months it took for the U.S. prosecutor to submit a draft of the extradition request to the Department of Justice Office of International Affairs could have been reduced, but wrote that such a period of negligence alone would not deny the defendant’s right to a speedy trial without a sufficient UNITED STATES V. ALEXANDER 3 showing of prejudice. The panel concluded that the defendant had not met his burden of showing particularized prejudice, where he was not incarcerated for any portion of the overall five year delay, he has not shown any uncertainty or anxiety resulting from the delay, and he has not provided any non-speculative proof as to how his defense was prejudiced.
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.