In re Moses

48 V.I. 479 (D.V.I. App. Div. 2006) · District Court of the Virgin Islands, Appellate Division · August 29, 2006

Summary

Samuel Moses petitioned for a writ of mandamus directing dismissal of long-pending criminal charges based on unconstitutional delay and want of prosecution. The court applied the Barker v. Wingo speedy-trial factors and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(3), concluding that the prolonged delay, inadequate prosecutorial and judicial action, Moses’s repeated assertion of his rights, and resulting prejudice warranted relief. The court granted the writ and directed the Superior Court to dismiss the case with prejudice.

Holdings

  1. The Appellate Division has authority to consider and determine petitions for writs of mandamus directed to Superior Court judges.
  2. Moses established the prerequisites for mandamus because he had no other adequate means to obtain relief and possessed a clear and indisputable right to relief.
  3. The more-than-six-year delay in bringing Moses to trial violated his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial and warranted dismissal with prejudice.
  4. Unnecessary delay in bringing a defendant to trial may warrant dismissal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(3), which imposes a stricter standard of tolerable delay than the Sixth Amendment.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Moses had no other adequate means of relief and a clear and indisputable right to mandamus because the prolonged failure to bring him to trial violated the Sixth Amendment speedy-trial guarantee.
  2. Whether the unnecessary delay independently warranted dismissal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b)(3).
  3. Whether the Appellate Division had authority to issue mandamus to judges of the Superior Court.

Disposition

writ_granted

Cases Cited (20)

  • In re Richards, 213 F.3d 773, 780, 42 V.I. 469 (3d Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Dawsey v. Government of the V.I., 931 F. Supp. 397, 400-01, 34 V.I. 174 (D.V.I. App. Div. 1996), aff'd, 106 F.3d 384 (3d Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Citibank, N.A. v. Fullam, 580 F.2d 82, 86 (3d Cir. 1978)(followed)
  • Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 95, 88 S. Ct. 269, 19 L. Ed. 2d 305 (1967)(followed)
  • In re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 141 (3d Cir. 2000)(followed)
  • Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 515, 530-35, 92 S. Ct. 2182, 33 L. Ed. 2d 101 (1972)(followed)
  • Government of the Virgin Islands v. Pemberton, 813 F.2d 626 (3d Cir. 1987)(distinguished)
  • Dreyer v. United States, 533 F.2d 112, 114-17 (3d Cir. 1976)(followed)
  • United States v. Williams, 782 F.2d 1462, 1465 (9th Cir. 1985)(followed)
  • United States v. Moore, 414 U.S. 25-27, 94 S. Ct. 188, 38 L. Ed. 2d 183 (1973)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Download CaseDownload Case DataDownload Case and DataDownload AI Instructions

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…