![]() ![]() Nevertheless, the non-violent nature of the crime is a factor to take into consideration and does weigh against the seriousness of Montecalvo’s offense. These sums are a substantial amount.Īlthough the crime was non-violent in nature, this does not necessarily render it non-serious. The corporate defendants jointly forfeited $2.3 million, which represented the gross amount of the contracts awarded as a result of the conspiracy. The actual losses sustained by the SCD PW and Brookhaven as a result of the inflated prices due to the bid-rigging scheme were in the sum of $326,343.20. Bid-rigging is a form of racketeering and racketeering has been found to be “serious” for Speedy Trial Act purposes. ![]() Here, the crimes that Montecalvo is charged with are arguably serious. The Court has uncovered very few cases that deem a crime “non-serious” for Speedy Trial Act purposes. It is well-settled that “hen an indictment charges a serious offense a court is more likely to rule in favor of a dismissal without prejudice.” The Speedy Trial Act states that “n determining whether to dismiss the case with or without prejudice, the court shall consider, among others, each of the following factors: the seriousness of the offense the facts and circumstances of the case which led to the dismissal and the impact of a reprosecution on the administration of this chapter and on the administration of justice.” The Supreme Court has further directed courts to consider the prejudice suffered by the defendant as a result of the delay. See United States v. The determination of whether to dismiss an indictment with or without prejudice is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. See United States v. However, the Court must decide whether such dismissal should be with or without prejudice. Therefore, since the trial did not commence within the 70 non-excludable days as set forth in the Speedy Trial Act, dismissal of the indictment is warranted. “If a defendant is not brought to trial within the time limit required by section 3161(c) as extended by section 3161(h), the information or indictment shall be dismissed on motion of the defendant.” The “efendant bears the burden of proof supporting such a motion.” Here, the Government concedes that more than six years have passed since the return of the indictment against Montecalvo on December 16, 2005, only one year of which was excluded. ![]() § 3161(h), of the filing of the information or indictment or of the defendant’s first appearance before a judicial officer, whichever occurs last.” United States v. § 3161(c)(1), “the trial of a criminal defendant must generally commence within 70 non-excludable days, see 18 U.S.C. In light of all of these factors, the Court finds that dismissal of this indictment with prejudice is warranted. While the delay was not designed to gain a tactical advantage for the government, the delay nevertheless demonstrates a lackadaisical attitude towards prosecution that cannot be tolerated under our system of justice. ![]() Holding: The practical prejudice Montecalvo has suffered, in addition to the sheer length of the delay, weigh substantially in the Court’s analysis in favor of dismissal with prejudice. Issue: Whether the defendant was entitled to a dismissal of the indictment with prejudice for violations of the Speedy Trial Act. Montecalvo 2012 WL 1862381 _F.Supp._ (EDNY 2012)ĭecided by the Eastern District of New York Federal Right To A Speedy Trial: The Speedy Trial Act ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |