## Facts

- In February 1980, a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida indicted Marc Gilbert Doggett for conspiracy to import and distribute cocaine under 21 U.S.C. §§ 846, 963.
- Before arrest, Doggett left the United States for Colombia; officers could not locate him at his parents’ home in March 1980.
- The Government later learned Doggett was imprisoned in Panama, requested Panamanian expulsion to the United States, and then failed to track his status; an entry in a law-enforcement system expired and his name dropped from the system.
- After release from Panamanian custody, Doggett traveled to Colombia and reentered the United States in September 1982 without interception.
- Doggett lived openly in Virginia under his own name, married, earned a degree, and maintained steady employment.
- In September 1988—about 8½ years after indictment—the U.S. Marshals Service located Doggett through a routine credit check and arrested him.
- Doggett moved to dismiss the indictment for a Sixth Amendment speedy-trial violation; the magistrate and district court found the delay presumptively prejudicial but denied relief for lack of actual prejudice.
- Doggett entered a conditional guilty plea preserving the speedy-trial claim; the Eleventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that a specific showing of prejudice was required.

## Issues

1. Whether an 8½-year delay between indictment and arrest violated the Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial.
2. Whether a defendant must show actual, specific prejudice to establish a speedy-trial violation when the delay is attributable to government negligence.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and held that Doggett’s Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial was violated.
- Applying Barker v. Wingo’s four-factor test, the Court found the delay extraordinary and sufficient to trigger full speedy-trial analysis.
- The Court accepted the lower court’s finding that the delay resulted from governmental negligence, including failure to maintain tracking systems and failure to follow up after learning of Doggett’s foreign custody and later reentry.
- Because Doggett was unaware of the indictment until arrest, his earlier failure to assert the right did not weigh against him; he asserted it promptly after arrest.
- The Court held that, given the extraordinary length of delay and government responsibility for it, prejudice could be presumed without a specific showing that the defense was actually impaired.

## Legal Principles

- Sixth Amendment speedy-trial claims are evaluated under Barker v. Wingo’s balancing test: length of delay, reason for delay, assertion of the right, and prejudice.
- An extraordinary post-indictment delay attributable to government negligence can support a presumption of prejudice that satisfies the Barker prejudice factor.
- The presumption of prejudice strengthens as negligent delay grows longer and is assessed together with the other Barker factors.
- A defendant who did not know of the indictment cannot be faulted for failing to demand a speedy trial before learning of the charge.
- The Speedy Trial Clause protects against (1) oppressive pretrial incarceration, (2) anxiety and concern, and (3) impairment of the defense, with defense impairment treated as the most serious interest.

## Conclusion

The Court held that an 8½-year, negligence-driven delay between indictment and arrest violated the Sixth Amendment, and that in such circumstances a defendant need not prove specific, identifiable prejudice because extended delay itself can presumptively compromise the fairness and reliability of a criminal trial.


Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992)