Juan Ramon Matta-Ballesteros v. United States of America

Filing 45

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT signed by Judge John A. Kronstadt. (ah)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8
FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
10
Plaintiff,

Case No.
LA CR87-0422-JAK (17)
LA CV16-02596-JAK

11
v.
12
JUAN RAMON MATTA-BALLESTEROS,

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
OF LAW RE: SPEEDY TRIAL ACT

13
Defendant.
14
15
16
17

On May 22, 2017, in concurrent civil matter CV 16-2596, this
Court granted a motion filed by defendant Juan Ramon MattaBallesteros (“defendant”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255, vacated

18
defendant’s convictions, and ordered the government to indicate
19
whether it would proceed to new trial in this matter.

Based on the

20
21

pleadings filed by the parties in conjunction with the 28 U.S.C.

22

§ 2255 motion, the Court has familiarity with the underlying facts in

23

this case.

24
25
26

In a separate filing, the government indicated that it wished to
conduct mitochondrial DNA tests of forensic evidence seized in the
original investigation, and asked for further time to report to the

27
Court on its intentions with regard to a new trial.
28

The government

1

indicated that it was engaged in a process of examining evidence for

2

mitochondrial DNA for a period of time pre-dating the Court’s order.

3

The request for further time was not opposed by defendant.

On July

4
5, 2017, the Court granted the government’s request for further time
5
to make its statement to the Court and specifically ordered the
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

government to respond by August 29, 2017.
The Speedy Trial Act, and specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e),
states in relevant part:
If the defendant is to be tried again following an
appeal or collateral attack, the trial shall commence
within seventy days from the date the action occasioning
the retrial becomes final, except that the court retrying
the case may extend the period of retrial not to exceed one
hundred and eighty days from the date occasioning the
retrial becomes final if unavailability of witnesses or
other factors resulting from passage of time shall make
trial within seventy days impractical.
In addition, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(6) states generally, upon a

17

motion by the government, that a period of delay of trial is

18

reasonable if the ends of justice served by taking such action

19

outweigh the best interest of public and the defendant in a speedy

20

trial.

Factors for the Court to evaluate include whether “the case

21
is so unusual or so complex due to . . . the existence of novel
22
questions of fact . . . that it is unreasonable to expect adequate
23
24

preparation for pretrial proceedings or for the trial itself within

25

the time limits established by this section.”

26

§ 3161(h)(7)(B)(ii).

27

18 U.S.C.

The Court, therefore, makes the following findings:

28
2

1

The period of time from May 22, 2017 through August 29, 2017, is

2

“excludable time” within the meaning of the Speedy Trial Act, and 18

3

U.S.C. § 3161 et seq.

4

of the examination of forensic evidence for the presence of

5

mitochondrial DNA by the government, and the complexity of the

6

underlying facts in this case, it is unreasonable for the parties to

7

proceed to trial within the seventy-day period set-forth in the

8

Speedy Trial Act.

9

arose from facts in 1986, and scientific techniques have advanced

Specifically, the Court finds that as a result

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(e), because this case

10

since that time, the need to conduct further scientific examination

11

of forensic evidence is a factor for delay beyond the statutory

12

seventy-day time period.

13

is “so unusual” and “so complex” both factually and legally that it

14

is unreasonable to expect trial to proceed within the time limits

15

established in 18 U.S.C.

16

period of May 22, 2017 through August 29, 2017 is excludable.

17

In addition, the Court finds that this case

§ 3161, and for these reasons, the time

As previously stated, by August 29, 2017, the government shall

18

report the findings of mitochondrial DNA analysis of hair evidence

19

and state whether it intends to proceed to jury trial in the matter,

20

and if the government intends to proceed to trial, the particular

21

charges on which the government intends to proceed.

22
23
24
25

SO ORDERED.
DATED:

July 24, 2017
____________________________
HONORABLE JOHN A. KRONSTADT
United States District Judge

26
27
28
3