United States v. LaCruz, 77 Cr. 654.

• Decision Date: 23 November 1977
• Docket Number: No. 77 Cr. 654.,77 Cr. 654.
• Citation: 441 F. Supp. 1261
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Joseph LaCRUZ, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

441 F. Supp. 1261

UNITED STATES of America v. Joseph LaCRUZ, Defendant.

No. 77 Cr. 654.

United States District Court, S. D. New York.

November 23, 1977.

Jane Parver, Asst. U. S. Atty., New York City, for plaintiff.

Stephen R. Mahler, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

GAGLIARDI, District Judge.

Defendant Joseph LaCruz is charged with violations of the federal narcotics laws. Count One of the indictment charges defendant with conspiracy to distribute, and to possess with intent to distribute, unknown quantities of an unnamed Schedule II narcotic drug in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. Count Two charges him with possession with intent to distribute three ounces of cocaine, a Schedule II drug, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 812, 841(a)(1), and 841(b)(1)(A). Defendant has made several pre-trial motions including, inter alia, an application for an order dismissing the indictment pursuant to the Speedy Trial Act of 1974, 18 U.S.C. §§ 3161-74, and the Southern District of New York Plan for Prompt Disposition of Criminal Cases ("Southern District Plan" or "the Plan"). For the reasons set forth below, the motion to dismiss the indictment is granted.

Facts

LaCruz was arrested on March 7, 1977 and arraigned before a magistrate on March 8, 1977 on a complaint charging him with the distribution, and possession with intent to distribute, of 1/8 kilogram of cocaine. Defendant, who was represented by counsel at the arraignment, was released on bail. The magistrate set April 4, 1977 as the date for the preliminary hearing.

The preliminary hearing was never held. The Assistant United States Attorney, in her supplemental affidavit in opposition to defendant's instant motion, states that at the time of the arrest, the United States Attorney was in the midst of lengthy discussions with Sterling Johnson, Jr., the Special Narcotics Prosecutor for the City of New York, concerning which of the two offices was to be primarily responsible for the prosecution of street-level narcotics cases. By letter dated March 22, 1977, the United States Attorney declined federal prosecution of the defendant and an alleged co-conspirator Paul Bagala in favor of action by the Special Narcotics Prosecutor's office and forwarded defendant's case file to that office. By letter dated March 28, 1977, however, Mr. Johnson declined prosecution as well. Inadvertently, his office retained the case file.

The Government's attention then shifted to Bagala, who had been arrested with LaCruz and had begun cooperating with the Government on the prosecution of other violations of the narcotics laws. The LaCruz file was finally located in the Special Narcotics Prosecutor's office in August, 1977. The present indictment, 77 Cr. 654, including both the conspiracy and possession charges, was filed on September 2, 1977, and LaCruz, appearing without counsel, was arraigned on it on September 8, 1977. The Legal Aid Society was assigned to represent the defendant four days later. At a pre-trial conference on September 23, 1977, the Government indicated its readiness to proceed to trial, although to date no notice of readiness has actually been filed with the court. Defendant subsequently discharged his Legal Aid Society counsel and retained his present counsel on September 29, 1977. The instant motions were filed soon thereafter.

Defendant contends that both the Speedy Trial Act and the Southern District Plan have been violated in two respects: 1) the Government's failure to file the indictment within 60 days of arrest, as required by 18 U.S.C. § 3161(b), (f) and § 3(a)(2) of the Plan; and 2) the Government's failure to be ready for trial within six months of his arrest, as required by § 7 of the Plan. The Government concedes that both the Act and the Plan have been violated, but only insofar as the indictment was not filed within 60 days of LaCruz's arrest. It argues that because certain periods of time must be excluded from the computation of the six-month ready for trial period under the Plan, that provision has not been violated. The Government maintains, moreover, that dismissal of the indictment is a discretionary sanction which this court ought not invoke on the facts of this case.

The Speedy Trial Act as yet provides no sanctions for its violation because the Act is still in its "phase-in" period. United States v. Carini, 562 F.2d 144 (2d Cir. 1977); see 18 U.S.C. § 3163(c) (Supp. V, 1975). Consequently, the defendant cannot rely on its provisions to require dismissal of the indictment. Nevertheless, "the federal courts have long had the power to dismiss indictments for inexcusable delay by the government in prosecution," United States v. Furey, 514 F.2d 1098, 1102 (2d Cir. 1975). Since 1971, the district courts of this Circuit have adopted a series of plans, all of which have provided for the dismissal of indictments under certain circumstances. See generally United States v. Salzmann, 417 F.Supp. 1139, 1148-51 (E.D.N.Y.1976) (detailing the basic provisions of each of the plans). The holding of Carini that the Act as yet mandates no sanctions for noncompliance does not alter this court's authority to dismiss under the Southern District Plan because the parties in that case did not raise, and the Court did not consider, the issue of the Government's failure to comply with the applicable plan. United States v. Carini, supra, at n. 1. The Court noted, moreover, that "the requirements of the plan must be followed strictly." Id., citing United States v. McDonough, 504 F.2d 67 (2d Cir. 1974) (per curiam) and United States v. Flores, 501 F.2d 1356 (2d Cir. 1974) (per curiam). The terms of the Southern District Plan became effective on July 1, 1976, and defendant was arrested in March, 1977. Whether this court must dismiss the indictment, or may do so in the exercise of discretion, is thus governed by the terms of the Southern District Plan.

Violations of the Plan

Defendant correctly asserts that two distinct sections of the plan have been violated. Section 3 provides in pertinent part:

3. Time Within Which an Indictment or Information Must Be Filed.

(a) Time Limits. If an individual is arrested or served with a summons and the complaint charges an offense to be prosecuted in this district, any indictment or information subsequently filed in connection with such charge shall be filed within the following time limits:

. . . . .

(2) If the arrest or service occurs on or after July 1, 1976, but before July 1, 1977, within 60 days of arrest or service.

The filing of the indictment on September 2, 1977 — almost six months after defendant's arrest — obviously violates this section of the plan, as the Government readily concedes.

Section 7 of the plan provides:

7. Time Within Which the Government Must Be Ready for Trial.

Notwithstanding any longer time periods that may be permitted under sections 3, 4, and 5, in all cases the government must be ready for trial within six months from the earliest of the following dates:

(a) The date on which the defendant is arrested;

(b) The date on which the defendant is served with a summons; or

(c) The date on which a complaint, indictment, or information is filed except when a sealed indictment is filed, the date on which the indictment is unsealed. (emphasis in original).

Since the defendant was arrested on March 7, 1977, the Government's failure to be ready for trial on or before September 7, 1977 violates this section of the plan. Although "the better practice, in those districts with heavy calendars, is to file a written notice of readiness with the clerk of the court for the judge's attention, and to serve a copy on the defendant," United States v. Pierro, 478 F.2d 386, 389 (2d Cir. 1973), the Government must only "communicate its readiness for trial to the court in some fashion within the six-month period." Id. In this case, however, the Government did not do so until the pre-trial conference of September 23, 1977 — sixteen days after the six-month period ended. The Government argues, however, that the six-month period did not expire because

(i) the period of time from the March 7, 1977 arrest to the March 28, 1977 declination sic of the Office of the Special Narcotics Prosecutor and/or (ii) the period of time from the defendant's initial appearance without counsel on September 8, 1977 until his ultimate retention of counsel on September 28 or 29, 1977, is time which the Court is permitted to exclude pursuant to the Local Plan, in the interests of justice.

(Assistant United States Attorney's affidavit at 2-3).

The Government misconceives the extent of this court's power to exclude periods of delay in computing any of the Southern District Plan's time limits. Section 10 of the Plan reads in pertinent part:

10. Exclusion of Time from Computations.

(a) Applicability. In computing any time limit under sections 3, 4, 5, 6, or 7, the periods of delay set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h) shall be excluded. . . . Periods of delay are excludable only as provided in the Speedy Trial Act of 1974.

(emphasis added). None of the exclusions set forth in the Speedy Trial Act applies to this case. See 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h).¹ While this court may, within certain enumerated constraints, grant a continuance if it finds that the "ends of justice" would be served thereby, id. § 3161(h)(8)(a), no such request was ever made prior to the September 7, 1977 deadline. This section of the Act certainly does not permit this court to grant a continuance nunc pro tunc. "This has to be the case since we are dealing with a clear line of time — much like a statute of limitations — marked for prophylactic purposes, not to be analogized to the equitable doctrine of laches." United States v. McDonough, supra, at 69.

Sanctions

The Government contends that even if this court finds the Southern District Plan to have been violated, dismissal of the indictment is a matter of discretion, and that this sanction is unwarranted under the...