United States v. Vanterpool

Criminal Case No. 25-138-1 (RJL) (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2026) · United States District Court for the District of Columbia · March 24, 2026 · No. Criminal Case No. 25-138-1 (RJL)

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Columbia denied Dremale Vanterpool's motion to dismiss federal firearm and drug charges. The court rejected his claims of a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 discovery violations, and vindictive prosecution, while reserving judgment on possible sanctions short of dismissal for the Government's failure to preserve relevant body-worn-camera footage. The court also declined to dismiss the case under its supervisory powers.

Holdings

  1. The delay did not violate Vanterpool's constitutional right to a speedy trial because, although the delay was presumptively prejudicial and most of it was attributable to the Government, the Barker factors considered together did not warrant dismissal.
  2. Dismissal was not warranted under Rule 48(b) or the court's supervisory powers because the circumstances did not constitute the extreme circumstances required for that remedy.
  3. The Government's negligent failure to preserve potentially relevant body-worn-camera footage did not warrant dismissal under Rule 16, although the court retained discretion to impose a lesser sanction later.
  4. The federal indictment was not vindictive because the Government provided objective, nonretaliatory evidence that the charges were brought pursuant to a general policy directing review and federal adoption of qualifying cases.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the delay in bringing Vanterpool to trial violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
  2. Whether the delay warranted dismissal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(b) or the court's supervisory powers.
  3. Whether the Government's failure to preserve and produce relevant body-worn-camera footage warranted dismissal or another sanction under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
  4. Whether bringing substantially identical federal charges after the Superior Court proceedings constituted vindictive prosecution in violation of due process.

Disposition

dismissed

Cases Cited (20)

  • Vermont v. Brillon, 556 U.S. 81, 88-90 (2009)(followed)
  • Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514, 530-32 (1972)(followed)
  • Mann v. United States, 304 F.2d 394, 398 (D.C. Cir. 1962)(followed)
  • United States v. Parga-Rivas, 689 F. Supp. 2d 25, 30 (D.D.C. 2009)(followed)
  • United States v. Hensley, 2024 WL 3673612, at *10 (D.D.C. Aug. 5, 2024)(followed)
  • United States v. Lloyd, 992 F.2d 348, 351 (D.C. Cir. 1993)(followed)
  • United States v. Slatten, 865 F.3d 767, 798-99 (D.C. Cir. 2017)(followed)
  • United States v. Salavian, 649 F.3d 688, 692, 694 (D.C. Cir. 2011)(followed)
  • United States v. Myer, 810 F.2d 1242, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987)(followed)
  • Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647, 651-52 (1992)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 20.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…