TURTLE PROSECUTORS WAIT FOUR YEARS FROM INDICTMENT TO ARREST: CASE DISMISSED IN TAMPA BAY, PINELLAS & ORLANDO

Defense counsel Peter Kenny had a great win in Orlando Federal Court, part of the Middle District of Florida including Tampa Bay and Pinellas when he successfully filed a Motion to Dismiss based on violation of speedy trial because of post indictment delay. If your case is moving like a turtle call your favorite Pinellas Criminal Defense Attorney.

Chang Si, painted in 1156

Back in 2007 the Government indicted the Defendant having a firearm in his possession when he sold a firearm to a Government Informant. Despite the indictment the Government never took the Defendant into custody by arresting him nor was the Defendant even informed about the existence of a Federal indictment against him while he served a term in Florida for an unrelated state matter. Only after the Defendant was released from state custody did the Federal Government follow thru by bringing him before a Federal Magistrate for his initial appearance. Because so much time had passed it would have been difficult for him to establish an appropriate defense to the charges, such as an alibi defense. Don’t wait four years to call a Clearwater Federal Defense Attorney if you’re under investigation.

About the Prosecuting Turtle below: 
Japanese depictions of turtles often depict a soft swath trailing them known as minogamewhich refers to the seaweed growth on their shells as they meditate like buddhas. How much minogame must the Prosecutors have on their fannies from their long four year wait to arrest a man after indicting him?

In Peter’s Excellent Motion to Dismiss he argued that Barker v Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) was controlling and that the following factors must be considered:

1. length of delay – nearly four years, any time over one year between indictment and arrest is presumptively prejudicial
2. reason for the delay – here government negligence to move the case forward and even gained a tactical advantage because the Defendant no longer had possible witnesses available for his defense.
3. Defendant’s assertion of his rights – he asserted his rights once he knew them and he had no way of knowing he’d been indicted until the Government placed a detainer on him.
4. prejudice suffered by the Defendant – even if he had an alibi how could he possibly remember where he was on a specific day four years ago?