United States District Court, W.D. New York
DECISION & ORDER
G. Larimer United States District Judge
Jessie McIntyre ("McIntyre") was indicted in the
Western District of New York on October 23, 2007 and charged
with narcotics conspiracy and with possession with intent to
distribute five kilograms or more of cocaine on October 3,
2007. The Indictment was sealed when filed, and remained
sealed until McIntyre's arrest eight years later on
December 24, 2015.
Court referred all pretrial matters and motions to United
States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b). Several motions were filed, but all
were resolved except defendant's pending motion to
dismiss the Indictment on speedy trial grounds.
Judge Payson conducted a hearing, considered documentary
evidence, and received submissions from the parties.
Magistrate Judge Payson issued a thorough Report and
Recommendation (Dkt. #51) discussing the relevant facts and
the applicable law, and recommended that this Court deny the
motion to dismiss. Defendant filed Objections (Dkt. #54) to
the Report and Recommendation.
accept and adopt the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate
Judge Payson. The Report is thorough and accurately sets
forth relevant facts and the controlling law. I see no reason
to modify, alter or reject the Report and Recommendation of
the Magistrate Judge. Therefore, defendant's motion to
dismiss the Indictment for a violation of the Constitutional
right to a speedy trial is in all respects denied.
Judge Payson issued a thorough 19 page Report and
Recommendation discussing the facts that were developed at
the hearing which included examination of relevant exhibits.
The Magistrate Judge also discussed the law applicable in a
situation such as this. I believe the Magistrate Judge
accurately summarized the facts and the law.
the record developed, it appears clear that McIntyre did his
level best for eight years to avoid detection by law
enforcement. He fled the scene on October 3, 2007 when law
enforcement attempted to arrest McIntyre and others for drug
possession, for which McIntyre was later indicted. Warrants
were soon issued for supervised release violations and after
October 3' 2007, McIntyre completely failed to comply
with the several conditions imposed on him as conditions of
supervised release for prior convictions.
until October 3, 2007, McIntyre had been complying at least
with the reporting requirements of supervised release on his
prior conviction. Thereafter, and for the next eight years,
he had no contact whatsoever and was a fugitive. McIntyre now
seeks some benefit from the delay caused by his own flight.
The law clearly is to the contrary.
Judge Payson discussed at some length whether issues relating
to the delay arise out of the Sixth Amendment right to a
speedy trial or under the Due Process Clause. The analysis
though as to the legal requirements is similar. In
considering a motion to dismiss, the Court must determine the
length of the delay, the reasons for that delay and any
prejudice that inures to the defendant from the delay. As
found by the Magistrate Judge, the delay here certainly is
substantial, but the other two factors: the reason for the
delay and any prejudice to the defendant control here, and
compel the conclusion that dismissal is not warranted.
with Magistrate Judge Payson's analysis and finding that
credible evidence existed from which it may be inferred that
McIntyre was aware of potential charges against him and was
attempting to evade prosecution. The Indictment stemmed from
the incident on October 3, 2007. It was on that date that
McIntyre fled the police and from that day forward McIntyre
never again reported to Probation as he had previously done.
It is reasonable to infer that McIntyre anticipated new
charges and sought to evade them. He successfully did so for
eight years. The fact that McIntyre failed to comply with
supervised release conditions, supports a finding that he was
attempting to avoid detection by law enforcement authorities.
The abrupt failure to comply with reporting requirements of
supervised release supports a finding of intentional flight.
There was other evidence that McIntyre had used false names
during his fugitive status and on the date he was arrested on
December 24, 2015.
strains credulity to suggest that McIntyre was not aware that
law enforcement was looking for him, based on the testimony
that the United States Marshals Service repeatedly contacted
family members and associates of McIntyre in Rochester, New
York and in several other states. Magistrate Judge Payson
accurately set forth the law that a fugitive that resists
government efforts to locate him, may not use the resulting
delay to obtain dismissal of the Indictment.
fact that the Indictment was sealed does not change the
result. Although McIntyre may not have known the exact nature
of the charges against him, his flight on October 3, 2007,
his complete abandonment of his responsibilities on
supervised release and disappearance from the area warrant
the conclusion that he knew of potential charges and did his
best to avoid detection. I find, as did the Magistrate Judge,
that defendant was principally responsible for the delay that
resulted in this case.
Magistrate Judge also determined that the Government employed
reasonably diligent and good faith efforts to locate
McIntyre. Defendant suggests that only one officer, a deputy
employed by the United States Marshals Service in Rochester,
was tasked with apprehending him. That is, however, not an
accurate description of what occurred. Although the Rochester
Marshals office was principally tasked with locating McIntyre
but, as pointed out by Magistrate Judge Payson, the United
States Attorney's ...