Review of cases on Westlaw
- United States v. Ellis, 2014 WL 6619504 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2014)
I could not find this case on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
- United States v. Soffer, 2018 WL 3725449 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2018)
I could not find this case on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
- United States v. Welch, 327 F. Supp. 3d 391 (S.D.N.Y. 2018)
This case exists.
- United States v. Abreu, 966 F. Supp. 2d 334 (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
I could not find this case on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
- United States v. Sidani, 998 F. Supp. 2d 670 (N.D. Ill. 2014)
I could not find this case on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
- United States v. Lumiere, 614 F. Supp. 2d 242 (S.D.N.Y. 2009)
I could not find this case on Westlaw or Lexis Nexis.
Recommendations
Having gone through the facts in your case, I have noticed that the events happened in California. Therefore, the relevant case laws that apply to your case should be from the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit covers the Central, Northern, Eastern, and Southern Districts of California. Cases form other circuits are not binding but are only persuasive. When you cite a case from a different circuit, the court will not be bound to rely on that case. It is therefore important that you cite a case that was decided in the Ninth Circuit, failure to which you may not effectively persuade the court.
Next, different circuits interpret statutes differently. For example, the circuits are divided on whether the sealing of an indictment affects when the indictment is “found” for purposes of the statute of limitations. For example, the Tenth Circuit has held that an indictment is “found” under 18 U.S.C. § 3282(a) whenever it is returned by the grand jury, and that sealing the indictment has no effect on this date. See for example, United States v. Thompson, 287 F.3d 1244, 1248-52 (10th Cir. 2002). However, other circuits have held that an indictment is not “found” for purposes of § 3282(a) if the indictment was improperly sealed and the improper sealing prejudiced to the defendant. The Ninth circuit takes this approach. See United States v. Bracy, 67 F.3d 1421, 1426 (9th Cir. 1995).
Courts in the Ninth Circuit hold that the sealing of an indictment tolls the statute of limitations as long as the indictments were properly sealed for legitimate prosecutorial objectives. See i, 67 F.3d 1421 (9th Cir. 1995). Therefore, to effectively challenge the sealing of the indictment, you must prove that the sealing was improperly done or that you were prejudiced by the sealing.
Although I have not found a case that exactly meets the circumstances in your case, I have provided the following cases where the court held that an indictment was not found because it was either sealed improperly or the sealing prejudiced the defendant.
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992)
This case was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. I hope you understand that U.S. Supreme Court cases are binding on all circuits.
In this case, the government prosecuted the petitioner on drug charges eight- and one-half years after he was indicted. The Supreme Court held that unreasonable delay between indictment and prosecution violates a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial. In fact, the Court stated that delays approaching one year are “presumptively prejudicial.” The Court also held that the petitioner not showing trial prejudice does not mean that relief cannot be granted. The Court stated in that regard that “in the absence of proof of actual prejudice, government negligence and a substantial delay will suffice to grant relief unless ‘the presumption of prejudice . . . is either extenuated, as by the defendant’s acquiescence, or persuasively rebutted’ by the government.”
The Supreme Court also held that actual prejudice can be shown in three ways: oppressive pretrial incarceration, anxiety and concern of the accused, and the possibility that the accused’s, defense will be impaired.
- S. v. Shell, 974 F.2d 1035 (9th Cir. 1992)
In this case, the government argued that its negligence was responsible only for a three-year delay, not a six-year delay as was in Doggett. The Court disagreed with the government’s contention, and held that the presumption of prejudice increases with the length of the delay. Also, the Court stated that even in the absence of proof of actual prejudice, the Government’s negligence and a substantial delay will suffice to grant relief.
Regarding prejudice, the court held that where “the government did not exercise due diligence,” there is “a strong presumption that [defendant] suffered prejudice”.
The court further emphasized that no showing of prejudice is required when the delay is great and attributable to the government.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )