Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Rights

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Buddy Gunter

Case No.: 22-1546

Officials: Ripple, Rovner, and Wood, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sixth Amendment Speedy Trial Rights

Gunter and Grommet collaborated in a scheme to distribute methamphetamine, which included a controlled transaction where law enforcement agents procured actual methamphetamine from Gunter. An indictment dated September 17, 2019 accused both Gunter and Grommet of conspiring to distribute and possessing with intent to distribute a minimum of 50 grams of methamphetamine, as outlined in 21 U.S.C. 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A), 846. Gunter’s apprehension took place on July 2, 2020. The court initially scheduled the trial to commence on August 31, 2020. However, over the ensuing 23 months, the trial date underwent multiple reschedulings. Initially, Gunter requested continuances, but subsequently, the postponements were at the behest of Grommet. Grommet’s requests were prompted by evaluations of his competency and the unfortunate passing of his attorney. Notably, when Gunter later sought to sever his case (unsuccessfully), he did not invoke the grounds of a Speedy Trial violation.

In the lead-up to the trial, Gunter made an unsuccessful motion to dismiss the indictment, asserting that his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial had been violated. The Seventh Circuit upheld Gunter’s conviction by considering factors such as the duration and reasons for the delay, the defendant’s assertion of his right to a speedy trial, and any harm suffered by the defendant. Despite Gunter’s last-minute attempt to dismiss the indictment based on his right to a speedy trial just before the trial itself, he had consistently opposed motions for continuances and consistently expressed his desire for a speedy trial. The reasons for the delays were not attributable to government actions. Gunter did not present any argument demonstrating that he encountered prejudice due to the delays, and there is no overt evidence of significant harm evident in the record.

Affirmed.

Decided 08/11/23

Full Text