U.S. v. Owokoniran, 86-2558

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (7th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before COFFEY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH; ESCHBACH; RIPPLE
• Citation: 840 F.2d 373
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Babatunde Kofo OWOKONIRAN, Defendant-Appellant.
• Docket Number: No. 86-2558,86-2558
• Decision Date: 13 November 1987

Page 373

840 F.2d 373 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Babatunde Kofo OWOKONIRAN, Defendant-Appellant. No. 86-2558. United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit. Argued May 21, 1987.
Decided Nov. 13, 1987.

John T. Theis, Chicago, Ill., for defendant-appellant.

Ruben Castillo, Asst. U.S. Atty., Anton R. Valukas, U.S. Atty., Chicago, Ill., for plaintiff-appellee.

Before COFFEY and RIPPLE, Circuit Judges, and ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

ESCHBACH, Senior Circuit Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Babatunde Kofo Owokoniran was convicted of importation of heroin, possession of heroin with intent to distribute, and conspiracy to commit those offenses against the United States, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. Secs. 841(a)(1), 952(a), 963, and 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2. The sole issue he raises on appeal is whether the government failed to bring him to trial within the time limits set forth in the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Secs. 3161 et seq. ¹

Page 374

We conclude that it did not and therefore affirm. I

The defendant was initially detained on or about the first of April, 1986. He first appeared before a magistrate on April 2, 1986. The magistrate ordered him held pending a detention hearing. That hearing was held on April 4, 1986, and the defendant was ordered detained pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3142. On April 28, 1986, an indictment was returned against defendant and two co-defendants, naming one Phyliss Slaughter as an unindicted co-conspirator. On June 2, 1986, after Slaughter did not satisfy the government as to her degree of cooperation in a related case, the government filed a superseding indictment naming her as a defendant as well. Over appellant's objection, the trial court excluded June 2 through July 2 (during part of which Slaughter was on trial in Boston) under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(h)(7), which provides "a reasonable period of delay when the defendant is joined for trial with a co-defendant as to whom the time for trial has not run and no motion for severance has been granted" shall be excluded for purposes of the Act's time limitations. Other relevant periods excluded by the trial court included May 5 and 6, excluded when the defendants sought review of the magistrate's detention order and, although the trial court indicated a willingness to hear the motion that day (May 5), the defendants said they preferred the hearing be on the following day, and May 12-19, which the trial court excluded "to allow defendants time to prepare pretrial motions." No pretrial motions were ever filed. Trial was set to commence on July 9. On that day, defendant moved for dismissal of the indictment. Declining to reconsider the correctness of its earlier exclusions, the trial court denied the motion.

II

We note at the outset that we must reject the government's contention that even if all of the exclusions were improper appellant's trial was held within the statutory period (the government contends that the time in this case ran from appellant's arraignment after the indictment was filed). The Speedy Trial Act provides in plain terms that "the trial of a defendant charged in an information or indictment with the commission of an offense shall commence within seventy days from the filing date (and making public) of the information or indictment, or from the date the defendant has appeared before a judicial officer of the court in which such charge is pending,...