Three year delay in deciding new trial motion is presumptively prejudicial to defendant but is not necessarily constitutional violation

SPEEDY TRIAL United States v. Yehling, No. 05-1416, ___ F.3d ___ (10th Cir. Aug. 8, 2006)(Colorado). Appeal of conviction for conspiracy to possess and distribute methamphetamine. HELD: (1) District court’s delay of three years and eight months in deciding defendant’s new trial motion is presumptively prejudicial. Interests protected by preventing unreasonable delay from arrest through sentencing and throughout appellate process are also endangered by delay in deciding motion for a new trial based on newly discovered evidence. Faded memories or misplaced evidence may impair defendant’s ability to adequately defend himself if he is granted new trial. (2) While length of delay and reason for delay in district court’s decision on defendant’s new trial motion weigh in favor of finding constitutional violation, delay does not rise to level of constitutional violation due to defendant’s failure to timely assert right to decision without unreasonable delay and defendant’s further failure to allege particularized and substantial prejudice resulting from delay. Read the opinion here.