Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

U.S. v. OLMEDA

United States District Court, S.D. New York


August 1, 2005.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v.
ANTONIO OLMEDA, Defendant.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: LAWRENCE McKENNA, District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Both the government and defendant move for reconsideration of the Court's Memorandum and Order of May 24, 2005, familiarity with which is assumed. Reconsideration is granted to both the government and defendant, and, as to each, on reconsideration, the Court adheres to its original determination.

While it is no doubt true (and is not at all surprising) that the usual prejudice underlying a claim of the violation of the due process right to a speedy trial is in "the loss of documentary evidence or the unavailability of a key witness," United States v. Cornielle, 171 F.3d 748, 752 (2d Cir. 1999) (citations omitted) category, none of the cases cited by the parties say that that is the only sort of prejudice to be considered. In Cornielle, the Court of Appeals thought it to the point to discuss the prejudice there claimed — "the situation where a defendant insists he has rehabilitated himself after release from prison on state charges, and that he justifiably relied on no further charges being brought because of the passage of time" (id.) — even though, after careful discussion, it rejected it.

  On the present record, there appears no reason for the delay in indicting defendant until over two years after the evidence was in hand*fn1 and defendant had served his Eastern District of North Carolina sentence other than to subject him to greater punishment than the maximum guideline sentence that could have been imposed in that district even had the New York City ammunition been proved, and which sentence was, in fact, imposed. The Court is not persuaded that that cannot as a matter of law be a due process violation.

  All of the parties' other arguments have been adequately addressed in the May 24, 2005 Memorandum and Order.*fn2

  SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.