Summary
noting that the "impact of a reprosecution on the administration of the Speedy Trial Act and on the administration of justice, must, of necessity, also embrace the unexpressed factor of prejudice to the defendant"
Summary of this case from U.S. v. GolomOpinion
No. 1144, Docket No. 95-1475.
Argued February 26, 1996.
Decided March 8, 1996.
CHARLES W. GERBER, Assistant United States Attorney, Eastern District of New York, Brooklyn, New York (Zachary W. Carter, United States Attorney; David C. James, Assistant United States Attorney, of counsel) for Appellant.
SAMUEL ROSENTHAL, Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt Mosle, New York, New York (T. Barry Kingham, of counsel), for Defendant-Appellee Edward Upton.
Harry C. Batchelder, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Charles Bray.
Richard S. Berne, Portland, Maine, for Defendant-Appellee Ray Stooksbury.
Christine E. Yaris, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Edward Hay.
John Apicella, Brooklyn, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Robert Zuegel.
Louis M. Freeman, Freeman, Nooter Ginsberg, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Joseph Moser.
Richard Ware Levitt, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Charles Catarelli.
Philip Katowitz, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Thomas Lewis.
John D. Patten, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Stephen Jones.
Jerry D. Bernstein, Bernstein Maffeo, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Roy Hardy.
Bernard H. Udell, Brooklyn, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Robert Knox.
Jay G. Horlick, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Jacques Jean.
Kenneth Paul, New York, New York, for Defendant-Appellee Hollis Huffman.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
Before: VAN GRAAFEILAND, MESKILL, and WINTER, Circuit Judges.
We affirm the district court's exercise of its discretion under the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. §(s) 3162(a)(2), to dismiss "with prejudice" for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court's Memorandum and Order dated July 7, 1995. See United States v. Upton, No. CR-90-0629, 1995 WL 428632 (E.D.N.Y.). Because of our disposition of this matter, we need not address the government's challenge to the district court's conclusion that the pretrial delay in this case violated the Constitution's Speedy Trial Clause.