United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
D. MARIANI JUDGE.
Introduction and Procedural History
before the Court is Defendant Gimy Jose Rodriguez's
"Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Speedy
Trial." (Doc. 251).
March 28, 2017, a federal grand jury returned an indictment
charging Defendant Rodriguez with the following violations:
(1) conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 100 grams
and more of heroin in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841
and 846 (Count I); and (2) possession with intent to
distribute 50 grams and more of methamphetamine and an
unspecified amount of heroin in violation 21 U.S.C. §
841(a)(1) (Count II). Count I of the Indictment further
charged four co-defendants in the conspiracy: Andrew Danko,
Angela Haggerty, Jerrod Curtis, and Hector Delacruz. Each of
these co-defendants has either pleaded guilty or has had the
charge against him dismissed by the Court.
in the present action is scheduled to commence September 4,
2019. On August 22, 2019, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss
asserting that "he was not brought to trial within the
requisite seventy days as required by law in violation of the
Speedy Trial Act and his Sixth Amendment rights" (Doc.
247, ¶ 14) and therefore requesting that this Court
dismiss the indictment against him with prejudice. Defendant
thereafter filed an "Amended Motion to Dismiss for Lack
of Speedy Trial" (Doc. 251) to "include additional
periods of delay that are attributable to the Speedy Trial
Act calculation and to clarify the Defendant's position
concerning the computation of time for Speedy Trial
purposes" [id. at ¶ 3). On August 26,
2019, the Defendant (Doc. 252) and the Government (Doc. 253)
each filed a brief addressing Defendant's amended motion
following reasons, the Court will deny Defendant's
amended motion to dismiss the indictment (Doc. 251).
March 28, 2017, Defendant Gimy Jose Rodriguez was indicted on
the charges of conspiracy to distribute heroin in violation
of 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 841(a)(1), and possession with
intent to distribute methamphetamine and heroin in violation
of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1). (Doc. 1). On March 30, 2017,
Defendant Rodriguez was arraigned by Magistrate Judge
Mehalchick and entered a plea of not guilty. (Doc. 28).
Thereafter, on April 3, 2017, this Court entered an Order
directing all pre-trial motions by Defendant Rodriguez and
co-defendants Danko, Haggerty, and Curtis be filed on or
before May 3, 2017. (Doc. 40). Although an arrest warrant was
issued for co-defendant Delacruz on March 28, 2017 (Doc. 8),
he was not arrested until May 31, 2017, in the Southern
District of New York (Doc. 53) and arraigned in the Middle
District of Pennsylvania on June 23, 2017 (Docs. 58-60).
parties first dispute whether the time from March 30 to April
26, 2017 is excludable. However, although the parties set
forth slightly differing rationales, the Government and
Defendant Rodriguez agree that the time from April 26, 2017,
through October 25, 2017, is excludable from the Speedy Trial
calculations (Doc. 252, at 3; Doc. 253, at 9-13).
Rodriguez asserts that the Speedy Trial clock then ran from
October 25, 2017 to January 22, 2018. (Doc. 252, at 3). The
Government acknowledges the Speedy Trial clock may have run
for five days from October 26 to October 31, 2017. However,
on October 31, 2017, co-defendant Haggerty filed a motion to
continue her change of plea hearing and a motion for release
(Docs. 106, 107). (Doc. 253, at 13). On November 1, 2017, the
Court denied Haggerty's motion to continue her change of
plea hearing and Haggerty therefore entered a plea of guilty
that same day. (Docs. 109-111). The Government further
acknowledges that the Speedy Trial clock then ran for 26 days
from November 2, through November 27, 2017. (Doc. 253, at
15). On November 28, 2017, co-Defendant Delacruz filed a
motion for pretrial release and a "motion for
discovery" (Docs. 112, 114). On December 18, 2017, the
Court scheduled a detention hearing to be held on March 1,
2018 (Doc. 118).
January 22, 2018, Defendant Delacruz filed a motion for an
extension of time to file pretrial motions (Doc. 124), which
was granted by this Court that same day (Doc. 125), extending
the time to file pretrial motions until February 22, 2018. On
February 21, 2018, Delacruz filed another motion for an
extension of time to file pretrial motions (Doc. 135), which
was granted by this Court the following day (Doc. 137),
permitting Defendant to file any pretrial motions on or
before March 24, 2018. Defendant does not deny that this time
is excludable for purposes of Speedy Trial calculations.
March 27, 2 018, the Government requested that the Court
schedule trial in this matter in light of "the deadlines
pertaining to all of the defendants hav[ing] passed."
(Doc. 141). On April 3, 2018, the Court scheduled trial for
Rodriguez and Curtis to begin July 31, 2018. (Doc. 147).
Defendant contends that this scheduling Order "triggered
the clock to begin running again for purposes of the
Act." (Doc. 252, at 4). In the interim, on March 28,
2018, Defendant Delacruz filed a motion for leave to file
pretrial motions nunc pro tunc (Doc. 143), which was
thereafter granted by this Court (Doc. 145). On April 3,
2018, Delacruz filed his pre-trial motions (Doc. 146).
April 4, 2018, the Court denied Delacruz's motion for
bail (Docs. 149, 150).
1, 2018, the Court deemed Delacruz's April 3, 2018
pre-trial motions to be withdrawn due his failure to file any
brief in support of those pre-trial motions. (Doc. 153).
22, 2018, Defendant Rodriguez filed a "Motion for
Clarification of Protective Order" (Doc. 157). The
Government concedes that the Speedy Trial clock ran for 20
days from the Court's Order of May 1, 2018, and the time
of Defendant's filing of a motion for clarification of
the protective order. (Doc. 253, at 17).
13, 2018, the Court deemed Defendant's Motion for
Clarification of Protective Order withdrawn for failure to
file a brief in support of the motion. (Doc. 158). Thus, on
June 15, 2018, Defendant filed an Amended Motion for
Clarification of the Protective Order (Doc. 159). The
Government acknowledges that one day ran for Speedy Trial
purposes at that time (Doc. 235, at 18). The Court ruled on
Defendant's motion for clarification on July 6, 2018.
(Docs. 168, 169).
29, 2018, Defendant Rodriguez requested additional time to
file motions in limine (Doc. 165), which this Court granted
(Doc. 166). On July 6, 2018, the Government filed an
unopposed motion to continue the trial of Gimy Jose
Rodriguez. (Doc. 167). The Court granted this motion,
re-scheduling trial to begin on October 2, 2018. (Doc. 170).
the docket reflects a significant amount of activity on the
part of Gimy Jose Rodriguez, certain co-defendants, and the
Government after July 6, 2018, because Defendant Rodriguez
does not assert that any time ran for purposes of the Speedy
Trial calculations after June 29, 2018, and the Government
does not point to any time after June 29, 2018, which this
Court should consider, the Court will not engage in a ...