08-1426 U.S. v. Wanigasinghe

Listen to this article

Criminal Procedure
Right to speedy trial

Where the defendant left the country for many years after his indictment, his motion to dismiss on speedy trial grounds was properly denied.

“As for the government’s role during the time Wanigasinghe was out of the country, a warrant for his arrest remained active in the National Crime Information Center until he was arrested soon after arriving here in 2007. That fact distinguishes his case from Doggett in an important respect. Doggett was out of the country for two of the eight and one-half years between his indictment and his arrest. The remaining time he was in Virginia; he married, earned a college degree, had a steady job as a computer operations manager, and lived under his own name. The Court—although counting the two and one-half years Doggett was out of the country as part of the ‘triggering’ delay—said that he could have been brought to trial six years earlier but for the government’s ‘inexcusable oversights.’ Presumably, those six years are the years he lived in Virginia after his return to this country and during which the government did not find him. In contrast, Wanigasinghe was brought to court almost immediately upon his arrival back in the country.

In addition, there is absolutely no hint that the government was delaying its case to gain any sort of tactical advantage over Wanigasinghe. In short, it is Wanigasinghe himself who bears the responsibility for the delay. Delay is pretty clearly what he wanted. See also United States v. Arceo, 535 F.3d 679 (7th Cir. 2008).”

Affirmed.

08-1426 U.S. v. Wanigasinghe

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, Crabb, J., Evans, J.

Full Text